Walters v. Stivers

California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 1947 No. Civ. No. 3508Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's findings that the plaintiffs breached their employment contracts through mismanagement, insubordination, and failure to exercise the level of skill and ability required by their agreements. The court rejected the argument that the 'best of his ability' clause allowed for substandard performance, finding instead that it required the application of the professional experience for which the plaintiffs were hired.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings that the plaintiffs breached their employment contracts.
Whether the 'best of his ability' contract provision permitted the plaintiffs to perform with less than ordinary professional skill.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence, as a whole, strongly supports most of the particular findings made by the court”

“we cannot accept appellants’ construction of this contract to the effect that it was intended thereby to provide that the appellants might use less than ordinary ability in carrying out the work for which they were employed.”

“The evidence would support a finding that the appellants did not perform their obligations under the contract to the best of their ability.”

BARNARD, P. J. These actions, which were consolidated for trial and on this appeal, arose out of two written contracts of employment. The defendants are brothers and the two plaintiffs are father and son.

In the summer of 1943, the defendants, who were building contractors at Long Beach, acquired a considerable acreage of orange groves in Tulare County and also acquired a packing house near Lindsay. It was planned that Morgan A. Stivers would continue the building business at Long Beach and that Raymond K. Stivers, the younger brother, would look after the orange business.

On September 22, 1943, the defendants employed S. E. Walters as manager of this packing house. He had had about twenty-five years’ experience in the citrus business, including some eleven years as a packing house manager. The contract fixed his compensation as manager and provided that it should continue for a term of three years, with an additional two years at his option. The portion of the written contract of employment which is material here reads as follows:

“The second party agrees to manage the employers packing house to the best of his ability and to work for what he deems to be the best interests of his employers, to hire available help necessary to properly conduct the operation of the packing plant, set the pay for same and to discharge any one whom he considers is not working for the best interests of all concerned.

“The employer agrees to provide funds promptly on regular pay days to meet the payroll of the plant or to pay off any dismissals.

“He will order supplies for the plant’s operation and supervise the accounting for same as well as the records of fruit through the house, in short, he will operate the plant to the best of his ability in the customary manner for a packing house manager. ’ ’

On the same day the defendants entered into a written contract with Delmar E. Walters, who had had considerable experience in the packing house business, employing him for the same term, with the same option, as assistant manager [218]and house foreman for this packing house. The contract fixed his salary and, so far as material here, also provided as follows:

“The party of the second part will be under the direction of the house manager and act in his capacity during the manager’s absence, also assist him to the best of his ability and experience in the conduct of the operations of this plant.”

Walters v. Stivers

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief