![]() In 2003, for example, sales under the specific purchase orders totaled $30,974,297. These specific purchase orders led to continued sales in 2003, 2004, and 2005. ![]() As the parties explained at oral argument, the blanket purchase orders in question, although submitted during the period of the agreement, did not become binding contracts until both the purchaser and PCC confirmed a specific draw-down against the blanket purchase order. Cosentini maintained, however, that this did not alter his ongoing oral understanding with PCC's Sales Director Alan Peterson that Aerel would continue to receive commissions on all Aerel-obtained orders placed during the contract term, even if those orders were not completed and paid for until after the contract expired.ĭuring the term of the 2000 contract, Aerel negotiated blanket purchase orders of PCC products with two Italian companies, FiatAvio and Nuovo Pignone. But PCC rebuffed Aerel's efforts and, according to Cosentini, employed language in the new ¶ 5-B that expressly rejected the idea of commission tails. Aerel insisted that it was entitled to these extra commissions because it had developed a market in Italy for PCC products. ![]() Cosentini claimed that the language previously in Article V was eliminated because Aerel had requested a commission "tail" that would have permitted Aerel to collect commissions on orders that were negotiated directly by PCC, without Aerel's help, after the contract had expired. Notwithstanding this testimony, Cosentini filed an affidavit accompanying Aerel's motion for partial summary judgment in which he offered a detailed reason for the deletion of ¶ 5-C. But he acknowledged that he had signed the 2000 contract voluntarily. Luciano Cosentini, Aerel's principal, testified in his deposition that he knew of the change in the language and was not pleased with it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |