Hartman v. San Pedro Commercial Co.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury, in an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment, defendants appeal.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and pursuant to the rules set forth in

Estate of Isenberg,

63 Cal.App.2d 214, 216, 217 [146 P.2d 424], the essential facts are:

In the latter part of September, 1942, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant, San Pedro Commercial Company, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to act as the manager of

[936]

defendants’ hog ranches for a period of three years. The contract was to terminate if (1) defendants sold their business ; or (2) plaintiff entered the armed forces of the United States and failed to return.

Plaintiff was to receive as compensation for his services $650 per month and 25 per cent of the net operating profits of defendants. Plaintiff entered into the performance of the contract and continued to perform it until he was discharged by defendants on February 1, 1943.

The present suit was instituted to recover damages for breach of the contract and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $29,698.67.

There are two questions necessary for us to determine which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim:

First:

Was the contract unenforceable because of (l)a lack of mutuality due to the fact that the contract could be terminated in the event (a) defendants sold their business or (b) plaintiff entered the armed forces of the United States and did not return; (2) uncertainty in the length of the term of the contract?

This question must be answered in the negative. The law is established that conditions subsequent in a contract whereby the contract may be terminated do not (1) destroy the mutuality of the contract; or (2) make the term of the contract indefinite or uncertain.

(Vitagraph, Inc.