This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, an engineering associate, was employed by a temporary personnel agency and worked at a national laboratory. The Defendant, another personnel agency, hired the Plaintiff after advertising for the same position. Disputes arose over the Plaintiff's compensation, including an alleged oral agreement for a commission on contracts he procured and a written agreement regarding his hourly wage (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Entered partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's oral contract claim due to uncertainty in terms and dismissed the written contract claim at trial after the Plaintiff's evidence was presented (paras 3, 16).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the oral agreement for a commission was enforceable and that the written agreement unambiguously required the Defendant to pay him $24 per hour (paras 2-3, 19-20).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the oral agreement was too indefinite to constitute a contract and that the written agreement was conditional on the acceptance of specific terms by the national laboratory, which were not met (paras 4-5, 23-24).
Legal Issues
- Was the alleged oral agreement for a commission enforceable despite its indefinite terms?
- Did the written agreement obligate the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff $24 per hour, or was it conditional on external factors?
Disposition
- The partial summary judgment on the oral contract claim was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings (para 15).
- The judgment dismissing the written contract claim was affirmed (para 25).
Reasons
Per Hartz CJ (Pickard and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Oral Contract: The court held that the alleged oral agreement was not too indefinite to be enforceable. While the commission rate was to be negotiated between 1% and 10%, the Plaintiff could recover at least the minimum rate of 1%. The court found that the evidence supported the existence of an enforceable agreement and reversed the partial summary judgment (paras 5-15).
Written Contract: The court found ambiguity in the written agreement, as it was conditional on the national laboratory's acceptance of specific terms, including a $35 billing rate. When the laboratory approved a lower rate, the Defendant was not obligated to pay the Plaintiff $24 per hour. The Plaintiff's subsequent acceptance of a $23 hourly rate constituted a new agreement. The district court's dismissal of the written contract claim was upheld (paras 19-25).