Bahr V Technical Consumer Products: Assignment

4 Pages653 Words44 Views

Added on 2020-03-23

Bahr V Technical Consumer Products: Assignment

Added on 2020-03-23

Related Documents

Running head: BAHR V.TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1NameCollege of Affiliation

Bahr V Technical Consumer Products: Assignment_1

BAHR V. TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS2FACTS:Emily Bahr served as a district sales manager for TCP which had a bonus plan whereby a districtsales managers who was able to achieve 100% of sales growth, would receive a bonus of 200% of his or her salary. Nonetheless, TCP came up with a discrete provision, which denoted that they had a right to modify the plan1. In the year, Bahr managed to get a sales growth of 113%, and a gross margin of 42%. This satisfied the provisions of the contract, thus she was entitled to a bonus of 200% of her salary. The amount of money she was earning was $ 42, 500; thus, she was anticipating a bonus of $85, 9452. However, the company could not afford such money, and only paid her $ 34, 229. Bahr sued for a breach of contract. ISSUE:The issue that was of concern for this case is whether the bonus plan that TCP had with Emil Bahr was too indefinite. The responsibility of the court was to determine if TCP was correct. DECISION:In the view of the court, the bonus plan was not indefinite; thus, TCP was not correct, and they were in violation of their contractual obligations. LEGAL REASONS:While deliberating on the issue before the court, the court was of the opinion that the bonus plan that TCP had proposed and thereafter initiated was definite. On this note, the modifications that 1 Bahr v. Technical Consumer Products2 Bahr v. Technical Consumer Products

Bahr V Technical Consumer Products: Assignment_2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.