Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1958, No. 3947, in equity, in case of Henry Rubin v. Lustro Tile Products Corp. Decree affirmed.
Paul M. Goldstein, with him Donald J. Klein, for appellant.
Harry R. Kozart, with him Stephen D. Rudman, and Weissman & Kozart, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Keim, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
The appellant was employed by defendant appellee as its factory representative in certain areas. Appellant, in response to an advertisement which appeared in a trade paper of the flooring industry, wrote to appellee. Subsequently in December, 1955, Appellant, living in Brooklyn, New York, went to Akron, Ohio, the location of Lustro Tile Products Corp., for a meeting. Terms of the contract were agreed upon whereby Mr. Rubin would secure distributors for Lustro Products in the areas assigned to him. After a great deal of correspondence, in the intervening months until December 6, 1956, Lustro served notice of cancellation of the agreement upon Mr. Rubin, excepting the one distributor in Newark, New Jersey, secured by appellant. Finally, on October 23, 1957, this account was terminated by appellee.
Appellant raises two issues in this appeal. He contends (1) the appellee failed to prove cause for discharge and (2) the chancellor erred in admitting parol
evidence to vary the terms of a written contract, consisting of two letters allegedly containing all the terms of the contract, there being no allegation of fraud, accident or mistake.
The scope of our review in an appeal of this nature is the well established rule that a chancellor's findings of fact, approved by a court en banc, have all the force and effect of a jury's verdict if they are supported by adequate evidence and ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal; however, the chancellor's conclusions, whether of law or ultimate fact, are no more than his reasoning from the underlying facts and are reviewable, Commonwealth Trust Company v. Szabo, 391 Pa. 272, 276, 277, 138 A.2d 85 (1957); Sechler v. Sechler, 403 Pa. 1, 169 A.2d 78 (1961); Shydlinski v. Vogt, 406 Pa. 534, 537, 179 A.2d 240, (1962).
Henry Rubin had been for many years prior to December 1951 a factory representative for many companies. The basis of Mr. Rubin's claim is founded on two letters from Lustro, the first under date of December 28, 1955, as follows: "This is to confirm agreement between Lustro Tile Products Corp. and Henry Rubin whereas Lustro Tile Products Corp. appoints Henry Rubin as exclusive representative for its manufactured products in Connecticut; the following counties in the State of New York; West Chester, Queens, Bronx, Richmond, Manhattan, Nassau, Suffolk, Kings and Rockland; the states of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"Lustro Tile Products Corp. agrees to pay 3% commission on all field tile sales, 5% commission on trim tile sales, and 2% commission on Mastic sales. Commissions are to be paid on the 15th of ...