JAY SUNDAY, APPELLANT,
v.
ENRIQUE BALARI, RICARDO MENENDEZ, AND SUNDAY ELECTRONICS CORP., 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.
Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing specific performance claim for personal service contract but reversed to allow amendment for potential breach of contract claim.
Courts will not compel specific performance of personal service contracts, but a party may amend to pursue a breach of contract claim based on the same facts.
[1] A shareholder may not obtain specific performance of an employment contract provision in a shareholder agreement, but may amend to assert a breach of contract claim based…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“courts will not compel specific performance of personal service contracts”
Statement of controlling legal principle barring the specific performance claim.
Jay Sunday sued co-shareholders Balari and Menendez and their import/export corporation for specific performance of a shareholder agreement allegedly …
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 Shareholder Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jay Sunday sued Enrique Balari, Ricardo Menendez, and Sunday Electronics Corporation — an import/export business formed by Sunday, Balari and Menendez — for specific performance of a shareholder’s agreement and addendum provisions which, allegedly, provided Sunday a three-year term of employment at $300 per week plus the use of a leased car. The partial summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Balari and Menendez must be affirmed because it is a settled principle of law that courts will not compel specific performance of personal service contracts. Mosely v. De Moya, 497 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. v. Mann, 205 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Bacon v. Karr, 139 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The factual allegations, however, may support a breach of contract claim. See Melzer v. Jacob Agay H, 426 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983). For that reason Sunday is entitled to an opportunity to amend. Hart Properties Inc. v. Slack, 159 So. 2d 236, 240 (Fla.1963) (“... where summary judgment should be entered, yet the matters presented indicate that the unsuccessful party may have a cause of action ... not pleaded, or a better one than that pleaded, the proper procedure is to enter the summary judgment with leave ... to amend.”); Cudlipp v. Blue Chip Laundry, Inc., 476 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (same).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to grant the appellant leave to amend the complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duarte v. Stevens Mkts., Inc., 159 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1963)
- Eve Bacon v. Karr, 139 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Mosely v. de Moya, 497 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Montgomery Pipe & Tube Co. OF Fla. v. Mann, 205 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Asher Melzer v. Jacob Agay H. & Sanina, N.V., 426 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cudlipp v. Blue Chip Laundry, Inc., 476 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)