407.912. Commission to become due, when — termination of employment, all commissions due, when. — 1. When a commission becomes due shall be determined in the following manner:
(1) The written terms of the contract between the principal and sales representative shall control;
(2) If there is no written contract, or if the terms of the written contract do not provide when the commission becomes due, or the terms are ambiguous or unclear, the commission shall be paid when the product or service is delivered and accepted by the purchaser or the principal receives satisfaction in full;
(3) If neither subdivision (1) nor (2) of this subsection can be used to clearly ascertain when the commission becomes due, then the commission shall be due on the date the principal accepts the order and receives satisfaction in full, unless the custom and usage prevalent in this state for the parties' particular industry is different, in which event such custom and usage shall prevail.
2. Nothing in sections 407.911 to 407.915 shall be construed to impair a sales representative from collecting commissions on products or services ordered prior to the termination of the contract between the principal and the sales representative but delivered and accepted by the purchaser after such termination.
3. When the contract between a sales representative and a principal is terminated, all commissions then due shall be paid within thirty days of such termination. Any and all commissions which become due after the date of such termination shall be paid within thirty days of becoming due.
Notes of Decisions
Lapponese v. Carts of Colorado, Inc., 422 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 48× “Carts of Colorado maintains that no contract was terminated as required by Section 407.912 and that Lapponese was not “terminated” within the meaning of Section 407.”
Mercer v. BusComm, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Appellant makes his claim for unpaid commissions under Section 407.912 of the MMPA, which provides that “the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.”
Burrus v. HBE Corp., 211 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Burrus’ second count was a quantum, meruit claim, and he argued that he was entitled to the reasonable value of the services he performed for HBE.”
Mike Abduhamed v. Carol House Furniture, Inc., 711 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “912 consists of three subparts and provides: (1) the written terms of the contract between a principal and a sales representative control when commissions are due; (2) sales representatives can collect commissions on products ordered prior to the termination of the contract with…”
Nash v. DAS Acquisition Co., No. 4:24-cv-00473 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2025).
· cites it 3× “” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.912 . But fatal to DAS’s first argument, the statute says nothing about “its intended scope,” doc.”
Parameter LLC v. Poole, No. 4:19-cv-02743 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2019).
· cites it 2× “Poole has also filed a counterclaim against Parameter, seeking an accounting of all commissions due to Poole (Count I), alleging breach of contract (Count II), and alleging violation of the Missouri Commission Statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.912 (Count III), for failure to pay all…”
Poorman v. TTG, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00211 (W.D. Mo. May 3, 2022).
· cites it 2× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.912 . Section 407.913 provides for liability of a principal to a sales representative for commissions earned where the principal does not timely pay: Any principal who fails to timely pay the sales representative commissions earned by such sales…”
S R Distrib., L.L.C. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00747 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2019).
“Missouri Revised Statute § 407.912 states: “When a commission becomes due shall be determined in the following manner: (1) The written terms of the contract between the principal and sales representative shall control; .”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.912(3): 1 case
Lapponese v. Carts of Colorado, Inc., 422 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
“Carts of Colorado maintains that no contract was terminated as required by Section 407.912 and that Lapponese was not “terminated” within the meaning of Section 407.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.