Thomas v. Buttress & McClellan, Inc.

I dissent.

In my opinion, the judgment against defendant Buttress & McClellan (hereinafter referred to as B&M), should be affirmed.

*821The record discloses that when plaintiff became B&M’s sales manager, the company’s main offices were in Los Angeles but its job sites were in various parts of the state. It maintained a branch office in San Jose, California, to handle its northern operations. Plaintiff’s employment contract provided that in addition to a fixed salary, he was to receive .0025 per cent of “gross sales.” He was paid this commission on the basis of the contract price regardless of…