SAS 136: The New Audit Standard for Employee Benefit Plans

< Click Here For Additional Info ="p__0">SAS sued, and both parties filed movements for summary judgment. SAS argues the clear language of the commission contract, when checked out as an entire, requires payment of the reward. We agree. When both parties submit motions for summary judgment in the trial court, the appellate court determines all provided questions and renders judgment.

Galveston County, 861 S.W. 2d 861, 862 (Tex. 1993); Jones v. Strauss, 745 S.W. 2d 898, 900 (Tex. 1988). A summary judgment movant need to prove there is no real issue of product reality to dominate on his movement. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Vaughan, 968 S.W. 2d 931, 932 (Tex. 1998); Nixon v.

Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W. 2d 546, 548B49 (Tex. 1985). If the written instrument is so worded that it can be offered a specific or guaranteed legal significance or interpretation, then it is not uncertain and the court will construe the agreement as a matter of law. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W. 2d 391, 393 (Tex.

The contract in this case is unambiguous. It mentions that bonus offers will be paid only for new sales credit which cancelled contracts will be followed by a reduction or repayment of any perks paid. The intent of a contract is not changed just since the scenarios do not exactly match the circumstances expected by the agreement.

The clear intent of the contract is that a perk is only owed on a finished, uncancelled sale. However a court interprets an agreement by determining the true objective intentions of the parties, based on the agreement language. Coker, 650 S.W. 2d at 393. No single arrangement taken alone will be provided controlling result; rather, all the provisions should be considered with recommendation to the entire instrument.