Government Personnel Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wear

The court is in agreement for the most part on the result reached in this cause, all being of the opinion that Wear is not entitled to recover commissions based on Earl’s sub-agents, but I do not agree that Wear should not recover commissions based on Earl’s personal production for the period between January 1, 1948, and June 28, 1948. To that extent I dissent.

This case presents five main questions: (1) Were the Wear original agreement and his “supplemental agreement” an entire single contract, or separate contracts? (2) What is the meaning of Wear’s complete contract, particularly with…