## Facts

- Dan Lind worked for Park & Tilford Distillers Corp., a Schenley Industries affiliate, and in 1950 was assigned to metropolitan New York under sales manager Kaufman.
- In April 1951, Kaufman sent Lind a memo elevating him to “District Manager” and stating an “incentive plan” was being developed so Lind would “benefit substantially” in monetary terms.
- Lind testified that in July 1951 Kaufman orally promised him a 1% commission on the gross sales of the salesmen under Lind’s supervision.
- Kaufman’s former secretary testified she was present and corroborated the 1% commission promise.
- The employer denied any commission agreement, never paid override commissions, and the alleged promise was never reduced to a formal writing.
- After Lind’s employment ended in early 1957, he sought unpaid commissions and reimbursement of moving expenses.
- A jury returned a general verdict for Lind; the district court later converted the verdict into a money judgment of $36,953.10 plus interest for commissions and $353.00 for moving expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 by granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an enforceable oral commission contract and that Kaufman had authority (at least apparent authority) to bind the employer.
3. Whether the alleged commission agreement was too indefinite to be enforced.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the order granting a new trial and directed reinstatement of the jury verdict and the molded judgment.
- The court held the district judge abused discretion by failing to apply proper standards for disturbing a jury verdict on weight-of-the-evidence grounds.
- The record contained substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding of an oral 1% commission agreement.
- The evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Kaufman had apparent authority to make the incentive/commission promise.
- The 1% commission term was sufficiently definite because the rate, base (gross sales), and covered group (salesmen under Lind) were identifiable and calculable from business records.
- The asserted evidentiary errors did not justify a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 59 new-trial order based on the weight of the evidence is discretionary but reviewable for abuse of discretion when the trial court fails to apply ascertainable legal standards.
- A trial court should not set aside a verdict merely because it would have assessed credibility or weighed conflicting testimony differently; credibility choices in such disputes are primarily for the jury.
- Apparent authority may be found where the principal’s manifestations and the agent’s position would cause a reasonable person to believe the agent can make the commitment; this is commonly a jury question.
- An oral compensation agreement is enforceable if the essential terms provide a reasonable basis for calculating payment; definiteness is satisfied when the rate and computation base are ascertainable.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict and molded judgment, ruling that the district court improperly displaced the jury’s credibility and fact findings in a contested oral-contract case and that the evidence supported enforceability and apparent authority under the governing Rule 59 standards.


Lind v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 278 F.2d 79 (3d Cir. 1960) (en banc)