- 13 -
Respondent asserts that Mark Mann's obligation to repay the
advances was contingent, because Mark promised to repay only from
the future salary and bonuses (if any) he would receive from
petitioner. Respondent's argument emphasizes the provision of
the July 31, 1991, note that "Payment [is] to be made from
project management salaries and bonuses in amounts commensurate
with earnings." Standing alone, this language could appear, as
respondent contends, to limit Mark Mann's obligation to repay to
his future earnings from petitioner. However, as the Supreme
Court of Oregon has stated, in Mignot v. Parkhill, 391 P.2d 755,
759 (Or. 1964):
It is not always easy * * * to determine whether the
intention of the parties is to limit the right of the
promisee to payment from a specified fund.
* * * * * * *
It is difficult to formulate a definite general rule
and the decision in each case must be dependent upon
its own circumstances * * *. * * *
In this case, the note does not state that payment is to be
made only from Mark's future earnings from petitioner, and the
evidence suggests that Mark and petitioner did not intend to
exclude other sources of repayment. For example, Mark Mann
testified that his repayment of the advances depended more on his
income in general, than on his earnings from petitioner. Mark
further testified that Richard Mann and he had never discussed
forgiving or canceling his obligation to repay the advances,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011