Harris v. Tom Griffith Water Well
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-00639-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00639-COA ; 2007-CT-00639-SCT ; 2007-CA-00639-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-28-2010 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Court of Appeals reversed; Circuit Court reinstated and affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Modification of terms - Novation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2007 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: Following trial, the chancellor entered a judgment in favor of Griffith, finding that the terms of their initial agreement had been modified and that Harris was not owed any money. Case Number: 2002-0177-G-T |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses a previous judgment from the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COpinions%5CCO54257.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WILLIAM S. HARRIS |
L. CLARK HICKS, JR., L. GRANT BENNETT |
|
|
| Appellee: | TOM GRIFFITH WATER WELL & CONDUCTOR SERVICE, INC. | THOMAS J. LOWE, JR., RENEE M. PORTER | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Modification of terms - Novation |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Harris sued his former employer, Tom Griffith Water Well & Conductor Service, Inc., alleging that Griffith had failed to compensate him fully for his services pursuant to a verbal agreement. Following trial, the chancellor entered a judgment in favor of Griffith, finding that the terms of their initial agreement had been modified and that Harris was not owed any money. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted Griffith’s petition for writ of certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In reversing the chancery court, the Court of Appeals couched the issue as “whether a novation of the agreement occurred that changed Harris’s status from an independent contractor to an employee.” A novation may occur where the debt remains the same, but a new debtor is substituted. In such event, the original debtor is acquitted, his obligation is extinguished, and the creditor contents himself with the obligation of the second debtor. A novation involves a substituted contract. In this case, the parties to the contract did not change and no new obligations were created. The issue is whether the terms of an existing verbal agreement were modified, i.e., whether the initial agreement that Harris would be paid commissions on his sales was modified so that Harris thereafter was to be compensated by a fixed salary. The subsequent actions of the parties pursuant to a contract may support a finding that the original contract has been modified to an extent consistent with the subsequent course of conduct. Here, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding that the conduct of the parties evidenced their intent to modify the terms of the original agreement. Harris could not offer any documentary evidence, other than his own ledgers, that he was owed additional compensation. Griffith consistently maintained that the verbal agreement had been modified so that Harris would receive a set salary rather than a commission. As the finder of fact, the chancellor was within his discretion to find that Griffith’s version was the most credible. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
