This case concerns an alleged breach of an oral employment contract. Prior to trial certain facts were stipulated.1 Both parties agree to the payment of commissions on an “over” and “short” adjustment basis.2 What the parties disagree about is *390what was to happen when a salesman terminated his employment with the corporation. It is the defendant corporation’s position that company policy is and the oral agreement was that “. . . after termination a salesman is not entitled to a commission unless the job is completed and paid for prior to the time, that he leaves the employment of the company.”3 Plaintiff claims that he was not told of such company policy until shortly before he terminated his employment, and one former employee of the defendant corporation testified that he had not been told of such policy when he was hired by the same employment manager for defendant corporation.
As to the issue of payment of commission upon termination, the defendant corporation raises three claims of error in its appeal from the judgment of $528.50 against it. Each of the three claims of error will be dealt with separately.
(1) Did the trial court err in admitting testimony of two former employees to show a policy or pattern of action by defendant corporation? As to one employee, a Donald Moldenhauer, the court excluded testimony relating to the year 1969 as too remote, but admitted testimony concerning company policy during the year 1972. As to the second former employee, a William Neis, the trial court allowed testimony as to discussions with the employer as to the effect of a salesman terminating or resigning when commissions had not been received. In an early case, where the exact terms of an oral contract were at issue, our court held testimony as to usual course of business of marine insurance companies to be admissible as “. . . tend [ing] to prove the understanding of the parties . . . .”4 Also, long ago, our court upheld *391the allowing of cross-examination of a grain elevator manager as to former transactions with the plaintiff and others, “. . . to support an inference that the present transaction was a storing of grain in accordance with the general habit.”5 In a more recent ease, our court barred proof of custom as to furnishing of a stallion for service to others since the stallion owner . . was at liberty, if he chose, to make a different agreement with several persons, and any particular agreement so made would be entirely immaterial and irrelevant as bearing upon a contract made with another.”6 More recently, in an action to recover payment for airline tickets, our court held admissible evidence of a course of conduct between plaintiff and defendant, holding . . local custom or usage or an individual course of dealing between two parties may be proven as having probative value to show the intention of the parties to a contract . . . .”7 Cited as authority was 4 Jones, Evidence (5th ed. 1958), p. 1932, rules 498 and 509 of the Uniform Rules of Evi*392dence. Under these rules, now codified by statute,10 we hold that the evidence of corporate habit or routine practice was properly admitted as relevant and material on the issue in dispute as to the nature of the oral agreement of the parties. In the case before us, the defendant’s manager of the Wittenberg office, who interviewed the plaintiff, testified that his procedure “. . . with all the men I hire” was to explain the policy of nonentitlement to commissions upon termination. This testimony, offered by defendant, is not consistent with the position that the company practice as to informing new employees about company policies has no relevancy to the company’s oral agreement reached with a particular employee.11
(2) Did the trial court err in not instructing the jury for what 'purposes the evidence of the two former employees was being admitted? There is no evidence or indication in this record that the defendant corporation requested such specific instruction when the case was submitted to the jury. Therefore error cannot now be predicated upon the omission. As this court has held: “Where instructions are incomplete, and do not cover a point that ought to be covered, this court will not reverse unless a timely request for appropriate instructions has been made to the trial court.”12
*393(3) Did the trial court err in failing to grant defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that plaintiff provided insufficient evidence to prevail on the issue of damages ?13 Here the reference is to the “over” and “short” aspect of the agreement, the defendant corporation noting that the testimony of its sales manager, one James Walters, stands uncontradicted to the effect that three of the five jobs brought in by the plaintiff were “short.”14 However, the overall issue is not whether three jobs were “short.” That issue is whether the defendant corporation owed the plaintiff money when all the jobs were considered. This is so because overages can offset shortages under the arrangement, thus enabling salesmen to receive their full commission. Here the testimony of Walters for the defendant was that one job was short $35, another short $117, and the third short $1,188. However, the same defendant’s witness testified that a fourth job, by far the biggest of the five, was “over.” No other specific evidence was offered by defendant corporation regarding overages and shortages.15 The plaintiff denied that any of his jobs were short, and also testified that he had *394an overage built up, and that no one for the employer corporation had ever told him his prices were inadequate. He also testified that all prices on all his jobs were “. . . within the guidelines of the prices set in the books and discounts allowed.” As to commissions due this plaintiff, we find here conflicts in the evidence to be determined by the fact finder, here the jury.16 Given this (and other testimony), the jury here found that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to prove that the total account of the plaintiff was a “net short” account. The trial court upheld this finding, and we agree that the issue was for the jury to resolve. As to the down payment on one of the five jobs not coming- in until after termination (the Dumask job), with the contracts signed before such date and the plaintiff having done all that he was to do in getting the job, we also hold that here the finder of fact — the jury — was entitled to find entitlement of the plaintiff to the commission involved under the agreement of the parties. As to the principal and ultimate fact to be determined — whether the defendant corporation owed the plaintiff the commissions on each and all of the five jobs procured by the plaintiff — we hold that there was here sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and, in turn, the judgment of the trial court.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.