Gillard v. Martin
13 A.3d 482
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Gillard sued Al-Mar RV, Inc. and Aldine D. Martin for breach of an employment contract, plus alleged detrimental reliance and fraud in the inducement, later dismissed.
- A three-day bench trial on remaining breach claims occurred in December 2008; post-trial motions were denied and judgment entered for Gillard.
- Trial court found Al-Mar breached the employment contract (not Martin in his individual capacity) and awarded Gillard $184,982.72.
- Gillard was hired as general manager to salvage Keystone RV (Al-Mar’s trade name) with an employment contract drafted July 25, 2005 granting him broad authority and $150,000 salary with potential increases.
- A March 9, 2006 agreement memorialized promises by Martin not to undermine Gillard and to cure future breaches; Gillard later claimed continued breach after this date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-suit conduct can support a total breach claim | Gillard can rely on pre-suit conduct to prove total breach since Martin promised to cure. | Gillard’s post-suit performance barred by election of remedies and waiver. | Pre-suit conduct supports total breach; no improper waiver. |
| Whether post-suit acts can support breach without amended pleading | Post-suit acts were properly considered to prove ongoing breach. | Plaintiff failed to amend; post-suit acts cannot be used. | Post-suit acts properly considered; no amendment required given pleadings and evidence. |
| Whether damages for loss of future wages were proper when not alleged originally | Damages implied from loss of salary increases and benefit of the bargain. | Damages beyond the complaint not properly pleaded. | Damages for lost salary increases encompassed base salary; proper under the complaint. |
| Whether Martin’s post-March 9, 2006 actions could breach contract given his ownership | Owner’s actions that undermine Gillard breached the contract. | Owner’s actions within his authority cannot breach under contract. | Certain owner actions post-March 9 breached the contract due to undermining authority and failures to cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinich v. Jencka, 757 A.2d 388 (Pa.Super.2000) (nonsuit standard; review of evidence in plaintiff's favor)
- Gigus v. Giles & Ransome, Inc., 868 A.2d 459 (Pa.Super.2005) (credibility and evidentiary review on appeal)
- Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283 (Pa.Super.2005) (review of trial court discretion and legal standards)
- Calabrese v. Zeager, 976 A.2d 1151 (Pa.Super.2009) (de novo review of contract interpretation; credibility bound to trial court)
- Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa.Super.2007) (contract interpretation; standard of appellate review)
- Agsco Equipment Corp. v. Borough of Green Tree, 443 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 1981) (waiver where continued performance after known breach)
- Savitz v. Gallaccio, 118 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 1955) (continuing performance and interim arrangements can affect breach analysis)