In Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 396, a rental equipment dealer worked under a contract that provided that his services could be terminated "'on thirty days written notice or without previous notice upon violation . . . of any promise or condition heretofore mentioned.'" (Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno, supra, 204 Cal. App. 3d at p. 405.) After the dealer was terminated without notice, he prevailed at trial on a breach of contract claim, and was awarded $ 29,000 in damages. (Id. at p. 400.) Thereafter, the trial court ordered a new trial unless the dealer accepted a reduction of the damages to $ 725, the sum that the dealer would have earned during the 30-day notice period. (Id. at p. 406.) The court in Martin affirmed. (Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno, supra, 204 Cal. App. 3d at p. 411.) It reasoned that because the jury had found that the dealer had not breached the contract, the operative provision for the determination of damages was the term that permitted termination upon 30 days' notice. (Id. at p. 407.) The Martin court concluded that the dealer was entitled only to $ 725.