824 N.W.2d 587
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Wieland Sales recruited plaintiff to establish a commercial-truck rental/lease business in fall 1996.
- On Oct 25, 1996, Radina agreed to work for Wieland with compensation including a regular salary and 1% of all lease revenues.
- Leases solicited by Radina were recorded as sales and the 1% payments as commissions, paid over the lease term due to Wieland’s cash-flow concerns.
- Radina admitted he solicited leasing business but did not sell any trucks.
- Wieland terminated Radina in December 2008 and stopped paying the 1% commissions on leases Radina solicited.
- Radina sued March 31, 2009, alleging a violation of the Sales Representatives Commission Act (SRCA) for the lost commissions; trial court denied Wieland’s summary-disposition motion and the jury awarded $63,750.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Radina is a sales representative under SRCA. | Radina was employed by Wieland for solicitation of orders for goods and paid by commission. | Leases are not ‘goods’ or solicitations for goods under SRCA since no sale occurred. | Yes; Radina is a sales representative because lease solicitations constitute solicitation of orders for goods under SRCA. |
| Whether the damages award is supported by the evidence or waived. | Leases and commissions were admitted; damages based on expected payments are supported. | No basis for damages shown; and issue waived without a motion for new trial/remittitur. | Damages upheld; even if reviewed, there is a reasonable basis for the award, and the issue is waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahnick v. Bell Co., 256 Mich App 154 (2003) (summary-disposition standard and de novo review under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 465 Mich 732 (2002) (statutory interpretation and plain-meaning approach)
- Homer Twp v. Billboards By Johnson, Inc., 268 Mich App 500 (2005) (treats legislative intent and statutory context in interpretation)
- Harvlie v. Jack Post Corp., 280 Mich App 439 (2008) (contextual reading of statute in SRCA interpretation)
- Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc. (On Remand), 259 Mich App 467 (2003) (remand context for damages and evidentiary issues)