Grossman v. Levy's
| Citation | 81 So.2d 752 |
| Parties | Sidney L. GROSSMAN, Appellant, v. LEVY'S, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John E. Mathews, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Reinstine, Reinstine & Panken, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. This complaint and its predecessors were dismissed on motion of the defendant predicated upon the ground that the contract allegedly breached was rendered unenforceable by the Florida statute of frauds, F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A.
The second amended complaint alleged in essence that on October 8, 1952, the plaintiff was employed by defendant, to manage certain departments of its store, under an oral contract providing for an annual salary of $12,000 plus a percentage of net sales. At the end of one year the contract was renewable or terminable at the option of the parties. On October 12, 1952 the plaintiff commenced work, and on October 12, 1953, entered a second year of employment under a one-year renewal contract. He continued to work until December 29, 1953, at which time he was informed that his services were no longer required. Plaintiff had been paid $4,000 under the renewal contract, leaving a balance due of $8,000. Damages were demanded in the sum of $10,000.
The appellant contends that the statute of frauds is applicable neither to the original nor the renewal contract. Appellee's position, reduced to its essentials, is that the original contract was unenforceable under the statute and the renewal contract, which merely purported to revive the unenforceable contract, was fatally infected with the same malady, and must therefore fall with it.
Assuming, without deciding, that the original contract falls within the statute of frauds, it does not follow that it is therefore a nullity, and thus no predicate for the alleged renewal. Our statute of frauds, unlike the statutes of some states, 49 Am.Jur., Statute of Frauds, Sec. 23, does not declare an offending contract to be 'void' or 'invalid'. Nor does it merit this construction, in spite of some casual language in Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341. It merely states, so far as is relevant here, that 'No action shall be brought whereby * * * to change any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof.' (Italics added.) The statute thus pertains...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. Brooks
...Florida Supreme Court has addressed the question of whether the statute of frauds applied to employment agreements. In Grossman v. Levy's, 81 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla.1955), the court held that an oral renewal of an oral one-year employment agreement, which commenced on the day the renewal was m......
-
Impossible Electronic Techniques, Inc. v. Wackenhut Protective Systems, Inc.
...Statute of Frauds as a threshold, procedural barrier to establishing a judicially enforceable oral contract, see, e.g., Grossman v. Levy's, 81 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla.1955); Rice v. Insurance & Bonds, Inc., 366 So.2d 85, 87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979), nevertheless, questions of material fact concer......
-
Smith v. Royal Automotive Group, Inc.
...operates only to prevent enforcement of an invalid agreement and does not operate to render such an agreement void. In Grossman v. Levy's, 81 So.2d 752 (Fla.1955), the supreme court Our statute of frauds, unlike the statutes of some states, does not declare an offending contract to be "void......
-
Labrecque v. Sunbird Boat Co., Inc.
...could not be performed within a year of its making and its enforcement is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Compare Grossman v. Levy's, 81 So.2d 752 (Fla.1955) (renewal by both parties of original contract which may have been offensive to Statute of Frauds on day second year of performance c......