Roth v. Speck
District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
126 A.2d 153 (1956)
- Written by Sarah Larkin, JD
Facts
Roth (plaintiff) owned a hair salon and agreed to employ Speck (defendant) as a hairdresser for one year. Speck was compensated with a salary. Speck was an exceptional hairdresser who maintained a large customer base. After six and a half months, Speck stopped working for Roth. Speck immediately began working for another salon for a better salary. Roth attempted to find a replacement for Speck, but was unable to do so without suffering a loss. Roth filed suit for breach of contract. Roth provided no expert testimony at trial regarding the market value of a hairdresser such as Speck. Though Speck’s new salary was proven at trial, Speck provided no evidence that he is required to perform additional work for the higher salary. The trial court held that Speck had breached the contract and awarded Roth $1.00. Roth appeals to the District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals. On appeal, Speck claims that he would have received fifty percent commission on any gross receipts that exceeded his salary and, therefore, that amount should be subtracted from any recovery Roth receives.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Quinn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
