Hunter v. Ryan

NOURSE, P. J.

The plaintiff sued for the reasonable value of a “bonus” promised to be paid to his assignor in a letter which read, in part, “I have a job for you. I will give you $50 a week and a bonus to try it out.” The cause was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. On a motion for a new trial the trial court reduced the verdict to $2,000, and from the judgment for that amount the defendant has appealed upon a bill of exceptions.

Defendant was engaged in a very successful business in the city of New York. Plaintiff’s assignor was employed in a clerical capacity in an insurance company in San Francisco. They became very warm friends and defendant made the written offer to employ plaintiff’s assignor in her New York office with the end in view that she might become a valuable member of her organization. The offer was accepted and the employment continued for approximately one year when a dispute arose and plaintiff’s assignor terminated the employment. During all this time she was paid regularly $50 a week for her services, but nothing was said by either regarding the bonus until some time after the employment ceased. On this appeal the only question involved is whether plaintiff’s assignor is entitled to recover a bonus under the contract.

The first contention of the appellant is that there was no enforceable contract to pay a “bonus” because the writing is uncertain and incomplete. Upon this issue the principle of law may be taken to be settled that a contract is unenforceable which is not complete and certain. (6 Cal. Jur., p. 215; 13 Cor. Jur., pp. 266, 267.) If, therefore, the words “and a bonus to try it out” are so uncertain and incomplete that the court or jury could not determine what the parties meant it follows that the contract was unenforceable under this rule. To escape this situation the respondent argues that he is not suing to enforce payment of

[738]

a bonus as such, but is suing on a contract to pay a nominal salary of fifty dollars a week, “together with a further reasonable compensation for her said services to be fixed at convenient intervals”.

If respondent can sustain his theory of the case it will dispose of all of the assaults upon the judgment covering the merits of the- controversy, because, if he was entitled to sue in