Drawing from established precepts of Massachusetts law that a judge may fill in an omitted contractual term consistent with the intent of the parties, a Massachusetts Appeals Court recently affirmed a trial court’s conclusion that the parties had agreed to commission payments for an indefinite period of time and as a result, the payments would continue for as long as the Defendant continued receiving revenue from the underlying customer.
In Prism Group, Inc. v. Slingshot Technologies Corporation, a dispute arose between Slingshot Technologies Corp. (“Slingshot”) and Prism Group (“Prism”), a one-person sales company Slingshot engaged to procure customers for Slingshot’s business of providing secure facsimile services in the healthcare industry. In email correspondence from the establishment of two customer accounts in question, the parties agreed that Prism would receive a commission of a percentage of the revenue Slingshot received from customers Prism brought in. At issue in this dispute were two lucrative client relationships that generated $9 million and $29 million for Slingshot, respectively. Despite Prism undisputedly completing its performance under the contracts, and Slingshot originally agreeing in email correspondence to pay Prism a set percentage of the revenues generated from these clients, Slingshot reduced and ultimately stopped paying Prism any commission, despite the ongoing nature of the underlying customer relationships.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- State AGs in Action: Health Care Enforcement in 2026 – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- The DOJ’s New Corporate Enforcement Policy: A Familiar but Now Nationally Unified Framework for Voluntary Self-Disclosure
- The Case Was Settled, but ChatGPT Thought Otherwise: A Dispute Poised to Define AI Legal Liability
- “Claude Is Not an Attorney”: Individuals Risk Abandoning the Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work-Product Doctrine When Consulting AI
- Prediction Markets v. State Gaming Laws: The Kalshi Litigation Gamble