Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

In 1993, Mohr sold his battery business to Batteries Plus, but he remained with the company as an employee, initially as a store manager and later as a commercial sales specialist. Mohr’s compensation package included a base salary and a commission of a percentage of the gross profits on all sales. He used his own vehicle in his sales position, and he received reimbursement for mileage expenses. In 1996, Batteries Plus informed Mohr that it had mistakenly paid him for mileage expenses. It claims that it had been paying Mohr an extra 2 percent in commissions to accommodate his travel expenses and that he was not supposed to receive additional $11,500 reimbursement for mileage. Batteries Plus asked him to sign a note to pay back the money through deductions from future wages. Mohr refused and denied that he had been overpaid. Over a period of several months the parties discussed the company’s claim of overpayment. There were sharp exchanges of words and letters, including a rejected request for an employment contract. Mohr claims that he was fired for refusing to sign the note to repay the money. Batteries Plus thereafter instituted a collection action against Mohr in circuit court to recover the alleged overpayment. Mohr counterclaimed, alleging wrongful discharge under the public policy theory. Will Mohr prevail?

In 1993, Mohr sold his battery business to Batteries Plus, but he remained with the company as an employee, initially as a store manager and later as a commercial sales specialist. Mohr’s compensation package included a base salary and a commission of a percentage of the gross profits on all sales. He used his own vehicle in his sales position, and he received reimbursement for mileage expenses. In 1996, Batteries Plus informed Mohr that it had mistakenly paid him for mileage expenses. It claims that it had been paying Mohr an extra 2 percent in commissions to accommodate his travel expenses and that he was not supposed to receive additional $11,500 reimbursement for mileage. Batteries Plus asked him to sign a note to pay back the money through deductions from future wages. Mohr refused and denied that he had been overpaid. Over a period of several months the parties discussed the company’s claim of overpayment. There were sharp exchanges of words and letters, including a rejected request for an employment contract. Mohr claims that he was fired for refusing to sign the note to repay the money. Batteries Plus thereafter instituted a collection action against Mohr in circuit court to recover the alleged overpayment. Mohr counterclaimed, alleging wrongful discharge under the public policy theory. Will Mohr prevail?

 

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now