McBroom

McBroom v. Winthrop Resources Corp.

Good Law
41 F. App'x 118
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 10, 2002No. 01-35073; D.C. No. CV-00-01292-JCCCalifornia1,155 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Contract interpretation is an issue of law that may be resolved on summary judgment if the contract language is unambiguous. Central Credit Collection Control Corp. v. Grayson, 7 Wash.App. 56 , 499 P.2d 57, 59 (1972). The plain language in Paragraph 7 (“Commissions”) of Winthrop’s 5/30/97 offer of employment to McBroom specifies that commissions on his sales would be paid to him when a sale is fully transacted (when “gross margin is generated”), on the condition that he be employed by the company at that time. McBroom accepted the offer and became bound by its terms when he commenced performance. See Cook v. Johnson, 37 Wash.2d 19 , 221 P.2d 525, 527 (Wash.1950). According to this contract, McBroom was “due” no further commissions (except those with regard to which gross margin had been generated while he was still an employee).

The Washington Supreme Court has held that a salesperson has no right to commissions accruing after termination where a written employment agreement expressly excludes payment of post-employment commissions. Willis v. Champlain Cable Corp., 109 Wash.2d 747, 748 P.2d 621, 624 (Wash.1988) (declining to overturn the express terms of such a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.