Procedural Posture: EEOC defense attorney

Plaintiff sales agent appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which found in favor of defendant broadcasting corporation. The sales agent filed an action against the broadcasting corporation to recover damages for the corporation's alleged breach of the agent's employment contract.

Overview

The agent filed an action against the corporation to recover commissions on an alleged contract for personal services and to recover damages for the corporation's breach of contract. The court issued a subsequent judgment in the corporation's favor. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court noted that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error when it admitted testimony of the corporation's president about the meaning of the words "resell and renew" in the agent's contract. The court further noted that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error when it rejected the agent's offer of proof of the customary meaning of such works. The court determined that the purpose of the agent's inquiry was to show a custom or usage contrary to the express language of the written contract. The court noted that usage was never admissible, except as an instrument of interpretation. The court recognized that the terms of a written contract could not be varied by parol proof of a custom where the contract was certain in its terms.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.