TOD W. BOSSERT, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff psychologist appealed dismissal of his breach of contract claim against a mental health center. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds that the employment contract lacked consideration and was unenforceable. The appellate court reversed, finding the contract contained sufficient mutuality and consideration to be enforceable.
The contract contains sufficient consideration and mutuality to be enforceable. The restriction requiring two weeks' written notice before reducing hours constitutes consideration, and the legal principle of mutuality does not require each party to have identical remedies or preclude enforcement simply because the contract may be terminable at one party's option under definite circumstances.
[1] A contract is supported by sufficient consideration when one party is obligated to perform a certain number of hours for a fixed period and has the prerogative to reduce…
[2] The legal principle requiring mutuality in contracts does not necessitate that each party possess the same remedies.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This restriction constituted sufficient consideration upon which to base an enforceable contract.”
Establishes that the two-week notice requirement for reducing hours provides valid consideration for the employment contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBossert, a psychologist, entered into a five-month employment contract with Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center. The contra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from the final dismissal of his complaint for breach of an employment contract. Plaintiff, a psychologist, filed suit alleging breach of a contract between himself and the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Inc. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and the trial court granted the motion with prejudice based upon defendant’s assertion that the contract, on its face, lacked consideration and was unenforceable. The contract specifically obligated both parties to a five-month term of employment during which plaintiff was to work a certain number of hours per week. Plaintiff was to be paid a fixed amount for his hours. The contract gave plaintiff the prerogative of reducing the hours he might work by serving written notice two weeks in advance of the date on which he intended to reduce his hours. This restriction constituted sufficient consideration upon which to base an enforceable contract. See Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413 (1938).
The legal principle requiring mutuality in contracts does not require that in every case each party have the same remedy. The fact that a contract may, under certain definite circumstances, be terminable at the option of one of the parties does not, as a matter of law, render the contract unenforceable for want of mutuality. See also Rollins Services v. Metropolitan Dade County, 281 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing this complaint with prejudice and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott, 420 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…t Act of 1980 as section 542.33, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980). . The absence of mutuality of remedies would not destroy the agreement’s validity. As this court said in Bossert v. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Inc., 404 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981): The legal principle requiring mutuality in contracts does not require that in every case each party have the same remedy. See also Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413 (1938); Bacon v. Karr, 139 S…
-
Sugar Cane Growers Coop. OF Fla., Inc. v. Cleveland Pinnock and Hezekia Jonathan Patterson, 735 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…certain definite circumstances, be terminable at the option of one of the parties does not, as a matter of law, render the contract unenforceable for want of mutuality.” Bossert v. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 404 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see also Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413, 419 (1938). In Bossert, the contract between the employee and the employer gave the employee the right to adjust his hours of work by serving written n…
-
Murry v. Zynyx Mktg. Commc'ns Inc., 774 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…la. 4th DCA 1982)(contract which gave employer the right to termi [*716] nate employee upon written notice held to be sufficient as against a claim of lack of mutuality); Bossert v. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 404 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)(two weeks notice of the right to terminate was sufficient consideration so as to avoid a claim of lack of mutuality). Even if there had been a lack of mutuality at the inception, we are dealing here with an executed contract whi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1938)
- Acosta v. Acosta, 281 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)