JOHN L. HIATT, APPELLANT,
v.
BENNET H. VAUGHN AND SIGN CRAFT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Complete performance by an employee of an oral employment contract, which by its terms cannot be performed within one year, removes the contract from the operation of the Statute of Frauds.
[1] An oral employment contract that by its terms cannot be performed within one year is removed from the operation of the Statute of Frauds upon complete performance by the…
[2] Complete performance by one party of an oral contract not to be performed within a year takes the contract out of the Statute of Frauds.
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 intelligencePlaintiff sued for breach of an oral employment contract for two years and for quantum meruit, alleging full performance. The defendant moved to dismi…
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 Full Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
M. GOLDMAN, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. We reverse.
The second amended complaint was in four counts, however only the first two counts were preserved for appeal.1 Plain tiff sought damages for breach of an oral employment contract for two years and for quantum meruit respectively. The second amended complaint alleged the parol nature and terms of the agreement, the aforesaid two year period and full performance by the Plaintiff. The motion to dismiss set forth the defense of the Statute of Frauds, F.S. 725.01.2
The sole issue before this Court is whether complete performance by an employee of an oral contract of employment, which by its very terms cannot be performed within one year, removes the otherwise barred contract from the operation of the statute of frauds. We hold in the affirmative. See Venditti—Siravo v. City of Hollywood, 418 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1982); Gerry v. Antonio, 409 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1982); W.B.D. Inc. v. Howard Johnson, Co., 382 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1980).
This decision comports with the generally accepted and better reasoned view throughout the United States. 73 Am.Jur.2d ‘Statute of Frauds’, §§ 533, 534. See also the annotation entitled “Statute of Frauds— Performance” in 6 A.L.R.2A 1053 wherein it stated at page 1111:
“It has been generally, though not universally, held or recognized that complete performance by one party of an oral contract not to be performed within a year takes the contract out of the Statute of Frauds.”
The judgment appealed from is reversed and remanded to the trial court.
LETTS, C.J. and DOWNEY, J., concur. . Count IV, which stated a claim based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not challenge the dismissal of Count III, nor did Plaintiff challenge the dismissal of Count II as it applied to the Defendant, Bennet H. Vaughn.
. Defendant, Appellee concedes that a claim for quantum meruit is not subject to the statute of frauds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eclipse Med., Inc. v. Am. Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 1999)
-
Neva, Inc. v. Christian Duplications Int'l, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 1533 (M.D. Fla. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- W. B. D., Inc. v. Howard Johnson Co., 382 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood, 418 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cedrone v. State, 409 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)