Drawing from established precepts of Massachusetts law that a judge may fill in an omitted contractual term consistent with the intent of the parties, a Massachusetts Appeals Court recently affirmed a trial court’s conclusion that the parties had agreed to commission payments for an indefinite period of time and as a result, the payments would continue for as long as the Defendant continued receiving revenue from the underlying customer.
In Prism Group, Inc. v. Slingshot Technologies Corporation, a dispute arose between Slingshot Technologies Corp. (“Slingshot”) and Prism Group (“Prism”), a one-person sales company Slingshot engaged to procure customers for Slingshot’s business of providing secure facsimile services in the healthcare industry. In email correspondence from the establishment of two customer accounts in question, the parties agreed that Prism would receive a commission of a percentage of the revenue Slingshot received from customers Prism brought in. At issue in this dispute were two lucrative client relationships that generated $9 million and $29 million for Slingshot, respectively. Despite Prism undisputedly completing its performance under the contracts, and Slingshot originally agreeing in email correspondence to pay Prism a set percentage of the revenues generated from these clients, Slingshot reduced and ultimately stopped paying Prism any commission, despite the ongoing nature of the underlying customer relationships.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Tougher Immigration Enforcement at the State Level: Tennessee Law Supplements the New Trump Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Policies
- Unusual Combinations of Justices Denying Veterans’ Claim but Requiring Executive to Make Foreign Aid Payments to Contractors - SCOTUS Today
- Textualism Again Comes to the Fore, Albeit with Contradictory Views on the Court - SCOTUS Today
- Dictionary Definitions Prove Decisive - SCOTUS Today
- A Preliminary Injunction Does Not a “Prevailing Party” Make, Criminal Conviction Through Knowingly False Evidence Violates Due Process - SCOTUS Today