Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HANLEY v. TRENDWAY CORP.

December 18, 1996

CHRISTOPHER HANLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
TRENDWAY CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORDBERG

 Plaintiff Christopher Hanley ("Hanley") brings this action to recover sales commissions allegedly owed him by Defendant Trendway Corporation ("Trendway"). Hanley's Amended Complaint alleges three theories of recovery: contract, restitution, and interference with prospective advantage. The Court previously dismissed all but the contract claim. Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment from both Hanley and Trendway.

 I. Background

 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are uncontroverted.

 On September 5, 1989, Trendway contracted with Hanley to be its sales representative in Illinois. Hanley's contract with Trendway (the "Agreement") specified, inter alia, the commissions to which Hanley would be entitled in the event of his termination:

 (Agreement P 10.)

 On August 16, 1991, Trendway terminated Hanley effective September 27, 1991; Hanley admits Trendway terminated the agreement in accordance with the Agreement termination procedure. In the termination letter, Trendway stated that in addition to commissions on orders received as of the termination date,

 
in consideration of an amiable separation and the return of all Trendway materials by September 27, 1991, Trendway will accrue and pay Hanley Associates commissions on all orders received from September 27 until November 22, 1991.

 (Def. Statement Facts, Exh. C; Pl. Statement Facts, Exh. B.)

 On August 27, 1991, David C. Field, Trendway's Vice President, Sales and Marketing wrote a letter stating in part,

 
In the event there are projects for which you believe you should be compensated beyond the extended date of November 22 . . . please provide me a list of these projects by September 6, 1991. I will review this list and advise you if any projects would be considered for commissions.

 (Def. Statement Facts, Exh. F; Pl. Statement Facts, Exh. C.)

 On September 12, 1991, Hanley responded with a letter listing four projects he had been "involved with for quite some time": (1) Methodist Board of Pensions ($ 1,000,000 list price); (2) U.S. Postal Service ($ 50,000); (3) Brookshire Lithographers ($ 130,000); and (4) Air National Guard ($ 100,000). (Def. Statement Facts, Exh F; Pl. Statement Facts, Exh. D.) Trendway did not approve any of these projects for commissions, in writing or otherwise, and has not paid commissions to Hanley with respect to any post-November 22, 1991 sales to the above-listed customers.

 According to Hanley, Trendway has withheld its approval of the projects listed by Plaintiff in bad faith, thereby breaching the Agreement as well as a contract formed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.