Reimer v. Badger Wholesale Co., Inc.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
433 N.W.2d 592 (1988)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Dennis Reimer (plaintiff) earned $350 per week working as a wholesale foods salesperson in Missouri. Reimer wished to relocate to Wisconsin. He received an offer of employment from Badger Wholesale Company, Inc. (Badger) (defendant). Badger offered Reimer minimum wage plus commission. Additionally, Badger offered Reimer an exclusive sales territory in the Neenah-Menasha area of Wisconsin, with an opportunity to expand into a neighboring city. Reimer moved his family to Wisconsin and then began working for Badger. Reimer discovered that some of Badger’s other sales representatives already worked in the Neenah-Menasha area and that Badger was unwilling to let Reimer expand outside of that sales territory. Badger terminated Reimer after 17 days of work. Reimer sued Badger for, among other things, breach of contract. Reimer sought damages of $1,188 for loss of income while employed at Badger, because his income at Badger was lower than at his previous job; $12,950 for loss of income from Reimer’s termination at Badger until the time of trial; $2,170 in moving expenses; and $5,000 in unspecified incidental and consequential expenses. A jury awarded Reimer damages of $16,500. Badger appealed, arguing that Reimer was entitled only to the amount he would have earned had he continued working at Badger.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scott, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
