Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Davies v. Garrard Chevrolet, Inc.
Citations: 591 So. 2d 1340; 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3523; 1991 WL 276963Docket: No. 91-CA-0075
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 29, 1991; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
James Davies appeals the trial court's decision denying him a percentage of the notes receivable from Garrard Chevrolet's Tote-A-Note program following his termination as Used Car Manager. Davies, employed since 1978 and promoted to manager in April 1988, earned a base salary of $1,000 per month plus 25% of the Used Car department's net monthly profits, calculated from gross profits minus expenses. These profits included sales of used vehicles and income from the Tote-A-Note program, which he helped establish. After his termination on June 22, 1989, Davies sought $22,670.86, claiming entitlement to 25% of the outstanding notes from the Tote-A-Note program. Garrard disputed this, stating Davies' compensation was based on overall departmental profits rather than individual vehicle sales. During a non-jury trial on September 13, 1990, the court determined that the Tote-A-Note program's credits were part of the gross profits and that Davies' commission was based on monthly collections. The court found no agreement entitling Davies to share in the notes receivable post-termination, leading to a judgment in favor of Garrard. Davies argues that the trial court erred in this finding, citing La.C.C. article 1846 and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages and attorney’s fees under La.R.S. 23:632. The court concluded that the claim for a percentage of the uncollected notes was without merit, as they were merely promissory notes on the books at the time of his termination. Article 1846 mandates that contracts exceeding five hundred dollars require proof from at least one credible witness and corroborating circumstances. In **Fox v. Don Siebarth Pontiac, Inc.**, the appellate court emphasized that the plaintiff must substantiate their claim with credible evidence, and the evaluation of this evidence is a factual determination for the trial court, only reversible if clearly erroneous. The trial court found that Mr. Davies' compensation as Manager of the Used Car Department was linked to the net profits of the department, which comprised multiple elements, including the Tote-A-Note program. Testimony indicated that salespersons earned 25% of the gross profit from car sales, paid based on collections, while Mr. Davies' compensation was contingent on net profits and could result in no payment during months of net loss, even if the Tote-A-Note program was profitable. Mr. Davies did not demonstrate that the trial court's findings were manifestly erroneous and failed to prove a claim under Civil Code article 1846. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating Mr. Davies was not entitled to any further compensation or unjust enrichment following his termination.