Spivey v. Fabricated Steel Service, Inc.

HERNDON, J. Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for alleged breaches of an oral contract. The complaint alleges that on or about July 1, 1956, the parties [116]entered into an oral agreement by the terms of which defendant promised (1) to buy plaintiff’s wood-processing equipment for the sum of $3,000 payable at the rate of $25 per week; and (2) to employ plaintiff at a wage of $125 per week “for a minimum period of time equal to the weekly payments by defendant on the purchase of plaintiff’s equipment, or for a total period of time of one hundred twenty (120) weeks.”

The complaint further alleges that the said oral contract was “confirmed” by defendant in a certain writing dated August 29, 1956, a copy of which was appended as an exhibit to the complaint and which is set out in full in the margin.1 By its answer defendant denied that plaintiff was employed for any specific period of time and alleged, among other things, that plaintiff had failed and refused to deliver the equipment as agreed.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to establish that he had in fact delivered the equipment; that he had received a total of $1,625 on account of the purchase price, leaving a balance of $1,375 unpaid; and that plaintiff had been employed by defendant and had received his agreed wage of $125 per week from July, 1956, until July 11, 1957, when his services were terminated by defendant.

Over defendant’s objection that the contract was within [117]the statute of frauds and that admission of the evidence would violate the parol evidence rule, the trial court received plaintiff’s testimony to the effect that the parties had agreed that his employment was to continue “for the duration of the time that they were purchasing the machinery. ’ ’ Since this ruling was in favor of the appealing party, we need not now decide its correctness. On the basis of this ruling, plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove a loss of wages in the sum of $4,183.03.

By its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court determined that plaintiff had fully performed insofar as the delivery of the equipment was concerned and that he was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price in the sum of $1,375. No appeal has been taken from the portion of the judgment awarding this amount to plaintiff. The court determined, however, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything for loss of wages and it is from this portion of the judgment that plaintiff has appealed.