Wajda v. M&J Automotive, Inc.
2010 Ohio 6584
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Wajda sued Montrose for breach of contract to recover the balance of a four-month, $4,500-per-month guaranteed pay.
- The parties dispute whether a written contract existed; the only documentary pay reference was a Payroll Change Notice showing a higher commission, not a guarantee.
- Wajda began work on August 15, 2007; he was terminated on November 7, 2007, with total pay of $6,713.62 during employment.
- Dugan sought to recruit Wajda with guarantees for sales staff, but management had wide latitude in hiring decisions and often paid guarantees to managers, not all salespeople.
- Trial evidence showed Wajda claimed a four-month, $4,500-per-month guarantee and a related commission plan; the record lacked a signed written contract memorializing the guarantee.
- The magistrate awarded $11,286.38 (the alleged balance), which the trial court adopted; Montrose timely appealed challenging sufficiency and manifest weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damage award is supported by the evidence | Wajda contends there was an oral contract for a $4,500/mo four-month guarantee. | Montrose contends there was no contract, only at-will employment and inconsistent testimony. | Yes; there is competent evidence of a contract and proper damages. |
| Whether the damage award is against the manifest weight or is insufficient | Wajda substantially performed; breach caused the specified damages. | The verdict is unsupported by credible evidence and improperly calculated. | No; the award conforms to the contract and is not against the weight or lacking in evidentiary support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002) (oral contracts require sufficient particularity; meeting of the minds)
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100 (1985) (employment at will; contract may modify terms)
- Lydic v. Earnest, 2004-Ohio-3194 (2004) (standard for sufficiency and manifest weight; deference to trier of fact)
- Suter v. Farmers’ Fertilizer Co., 100 Ohio St. 403 (1919) (preference for honoring contract performance and damages)