DeMarco v. Ohio Decorative Products, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
19 F.3d 1432 (1994)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
DeMarco (plaintiff) was a sales representative for Ohio Decorative Products, Inc. (Ohio Decorative) (defendant). After DeMarco’s employment with Ohio Decorative ended, DeMarco sued his former company for breach of contract. DeMarco alleged that he and Ohio Decorative had orally agreed to a “life-of-the-part” provision in his employment contract. The alleged provision entitled DeMarco to commissions on the sale of every part for which he obtained the first order, even after his employment terminated. When DeMarco left Ohio Decorative, the company ceased paying him commissions, prompting the lawsuit. DeMarco’s claim rested in part on a 1965 contract. DeMarco conducted a search for the original contract but could not find it and claimed that it was either lost or destroyed. Ohio Decorative argued that DeMarco’s inability to produce the original 1965 contract rendered its terms inadmissible under the best evidence rule. The district court overruled this objection and permitted testimony about the contract’s terms. The jury found in DeMarco’s favor. Ohio Decorative appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guy, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
