HOLLY HILL GROVE & FRUIT CO., APPELLANT,
v.
LEE W. WICKER, ET UX, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court modified its prior judgment on rehearing, adjusting the commission rate for sales made by the defendant based on geographical limitations and specific exclusions, and remanded the case for a decree consistent with the modified ruling.
Yes, the court overlooked the fact that the second employment contract, which reduced the commission rate, was limited to sales made in North Carolina. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to the original 15% commission on sales made outside North Carolina, subject to certain exceptions.
“it appears to the Court that the Court in its previous opinion and judgment in this cause, reported in 133 So. 622, overlooked the fact that the second employment contract involved in this case allowing defendant 12%% commission on sales instead of 15%, was limited to the sales made in the State of North Carolina”
This quote explains the primary reason for granting the rehearing and modifying the previous judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute over employment contract commissions. A second contract altered the commission rate from 15% to 12.5%. The court previous…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Petition by appellee Lee W. Wicker for a rehearing in the above cause was granted by the Court and upon reargument of the cause, it appears to the Court ■that the Court in its previous opinion and judgment in this cause, reported in 133 So. 622, overlooked the fact-*185that the second employment contract involved in this case allowing defendant 12%% commission on sales instead of 15%, was limited to the sales made in the State of North Carolina and it is now the opinion and judgment of this Court that the former opinion and judgment in this cause should be modified to allow defendant a commission of 15% on all sales by him made, after making of the second employment contract, in states other than North Carolina, and excepting however all such sales so made by defendant in which refund or cancellation of commission appear to have been authorized by him and except also all sales made and recognized as ground sales; and this cause is hereby remanded with instructions to the court below to review the evidence and enter a decree in conformity with the previous decree of this Court as hereby modified.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissenting: I think the first opinion was correct.