JAMES J. CANNY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL SAUNDERS & COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 reversed summary judgment for employer on breach of employment contract, holding that accord and satisfaction is a question of fact for the jury, not law for the judge.
Accord and satisfaction in an employment contract dispute is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for summary judgment.
[1] Accord and satisfaction in an employment contract dispute presents a question of fact unsuitable for resolution by summary judgment.
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 intelligenceCanny brought a breach of employment contract action against his former employer, Michael Saunders & Company. The employer asserted accord and satisfa…
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 Employment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant brought this action against the appellee, his former employer, for breach of the employment contract. The appellee pled accord and satisfaction as an affirmative defense. In a subsequent motion for summary judgment, the appellee asserted that its defense of accord and satisfaction was established as a matter of law. The trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment for the appellee. The appellant challenges that final judgment on this appeal and the appellee cross-appeals from the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). We reverse the final judgment for the appellee but find no merit in the cross-appeal and affirm on that issue.
After reviewing the depositions, affidavits and exhibits in the record, we have concluded that the question whether there was an accord and satisfaction between these parties is a question of fact which should be submitted to a jury. See Brewer v. Northgate of Orlando, Inc., 143 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); J.A. Cantor Assocs. v. Blume, 106 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment for the appellee and remand for further proceedings.
SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pasquale Enzo Fasano v. Henry W. Hicks, P.A., 667 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…tion, material breach of contract, lack of consideration, failure of consideration, and payment. In the absence of some proof contradicting or opposing an affirmative defense, entry of a summary judgment is improper. Canny v. Michael Saunders & Co., 543 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Harrison v. McCourtney, 148 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Emile v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment under review as to Pasquale Enzo Fasano only.…
-
Myers v. Miller, 581 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…of the final judgments and the rulings which prohibited the filing of the counterclaims. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION The issue of whether parties have reached an accord and satisfaction is generally a question of fact. Canny v. Michael Saunders & Co., 543 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In this case, it cannot be said as a matter of law, based on the pleadings, that the parties entered into an accord and satisfaction. The residents’ answers denied that there was a settlement and further denied that they paid the…
Authorities Cited
- J. A. Cantor Assocs., Inc. v. Blume, 106 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Brewer v. Northgate OF Orlando, Inc., 143 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)