Investors, 157 Ga. App. 879, 881 (278 SE2d 750) (1981); Nuclear Assurance Corp. v. Dames & Moore, 137 Ga. App. 688 (225 SE2d 97) (1976). In the present case, Brunson’s testimony would support a finding that, beginning in May of 1985, the parties were operating under an express understanding that compensation for all sales made subsequent to February of 1985, would be based on the commission schedules. While this understanding was obviously not definite and certain as to all details, a jury might reasonably determine that it was sufficiently definite and certain as to its essential elements to constitute an enforceable agree ment. Accord McMurray v. Bateman, 221 Ga. 240, 252-253 (144 SE2d 345) (1965). Compare Medlin v. Globe Continental Corp., 171 Ga. App. 103 (318 SE2d 807) (1984) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we hold that the trial court
holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question holding that a bonus calculated based on a percentage of the companys profits was a wage under colorados wagepenalty statute because the bonus was vested and determinable as of the date of termination was disproportionately large in comparison to the employees salary and was owed as compensation for services performed by the employee holding that a former employee was not entitled to recover a yearend bonus from his former employer where no definite sum of money or percentage of profits was promised and where the employee left the company before the end of the fiscal year in question holding that noncompete lacking geographic restriction was enforceable because the former employer sought only to prevent the employee from soliciting customers she dealt with while at the former employer holding that employee who resigned left voluntarily where employer accepted resignation told employee not to come to work anymore and paid employee through end of notice period