Opinion
April 21, 1941.
May 12, 1941.
Evidence — Parol — Written contract — Employment — Term of contract.
Where, in an action of assumpsit to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment, plaintiff averred that the contract was for a year and that he was discharged before the expiration of the year, but the contract, which was confirmed by a letter from defendant to plaintiff and accepted in writing by the latter, provided that plaintiff was to receive a specified salary weekly and made reference to termination of the employment, "at any time", and to a bonus payment to be made "up to the date of the termination of the employment", and fixed as the measure for its amount the increase of sales "for the same period over the preceding year", it was held that plaintiff could not show by parol evidence that he was to be employed for a year or longer, since such alleged oral agreement was contrary to the terms of the written contract.
Argued April 21, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 114, Jan. T., 1941, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1940, No. 2705, in case of Leo Chanin v. J. B. Liebman Co., Inc. Judgment affirmed.
Assumpsit.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The letter from defendant to plaintiff and the latter's acceptance were as follows:
December 13, 1939
Mr. Leo Chanin, 1450 Broadway New York DEAR MR. CHANIN:
This is to confirm verbal arrangements made with you to engage you at a salary of seventy-five ($75.00) weekly, plus a bonus of one per cent on all net sales above 1939 figures.
It is also understood that we are to allow you to draw twenty-five ($25.00) additional weekly as a drawing account against this bonus. The balance of any bonus due you from this arrangement will be paid out to you on or about January 15th, 1941.
In the event that employment is terminated at any time, the bonus to which you are entitled shall be computed on sale made up to the date of the termination of your employment in the ratio of increase of sale for the same period over the preceding year. From the amount so found to be due, there shall be deducted the sum previously drawn on account of bonus.
This arrangement is to start as of January 2d 1940.
Very truly yours,
J. B. LIEBMAN CO., INC.
(Sgd.) JOSEPH LIEBMAN, President.
Accepted and Agreed to (Sgd.) Leo Chanin.
P. S. The bonus on increase in sales is to be based upon an equivalent expenditure in advertising over last year's figures.
Affidavit of defense raising question of law sustained and judgment entered for defendant, opinion by McDEVITT, P. J. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was final judgment.
C. Brewster Rhoads, with him Maurice Pollon and John F. Headly and Montgomery McCracken, for appellant.
William N. Trinkle, of Truscott, Trinkle Wright, with him George D. Kline, for appellee.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment, which plaintiff avers was for a year. He was discharged during the fifth month of his service.
The contract was confirmed by a letter from defendant to plaintiff and accepted in writing by the latter. It appears in the notes of the Reporter. The court below sustained an affidavit of defense raising questions of law and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The position assumed by appellant is that the letter is not the entire contract between the parties and, therefore, he should be permitted to show that, by a prior oral agreement, he was to be employed for a year or longer.
The contract says nothing about a yearly employment. It provides that plaintiff is to receive a salary of $75 weekly. It speaks of the termination of the employment "at any time", of the bonus payment to be made "up to the date of the termination of the employment" and fixes as the measure for its amount the increase of sales "for the same period over the preceding year", not for the entire year, which it necessarily would be, if the contract covered a hiring for that period. This being the situation, plaintiff cannot import into the written contract by parol something absolutely contrary to its terms, an employment for a year. This would be to render the writings nugatory. Under all our decisions since Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc., 281 Pa. 320, 126 A. 791, the last of which is Penna. Co. v. Lebanon B. L. Assn., 337 Pa. 316, 10 A.2d 418, parol evidence is inadmissible to change the terms of the written contract. See also 9 Wigmore on Evidence Sec. 2430.
So far as the claim for bonus is concerned, we call attention to the fact that suit was brought on June 27, 1940, whereas the bonus was not payable until "on or about January 15, 1941." As to the bonus, the suit was premature. A claim for it can be asserted in another action, if such claim exists.
The judgment is affirmed without prejudice to the right to bring an action for the bonus.