RAYMOND CHONG, APPELLANT,
v.
TONY MILANO, 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.
The court held that an oral agreement to operate a business indefinitely is barred by the statute of frauds and cannot be enforced.
Chong and Milano entered into an oral agreement to own and operate a recreational vehicle dealership, with Milano testifying the agreement was to last…
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 Agreement Not To Be Performed Within One Year cases and more on FLexlaw
[*537] PER CURIAM.
Raymond Chong appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Tony Milano for the breach of an oral contract. Chong argues the statute of frauds bar’s the enforcement of the oral contract. We agree with Chong, and reverse the final judgment.
Milano and Chong entered into an oral agreement to own and operate a recreational vehicle dealership. At trial, Milano testified that the agreement was to last forever. Florida’s statute of frauds, contained in section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part:
No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof ..., unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized.
Since the business agreement was to last indefinitely, the statute of frauds bars its enforcement. See Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA1986).
Milano argues on appeal that even if the statute of frauds bars the enforcement of the oral contract, the trial court can be affirmed because Milano suffered a loss by relying on Chong’s promises. However, Milano only filed a one count complaint alleging the breach of an oral contract. Since the reliance argument was not raised in the complaint nor litigated by the parties, it is not properly before this court. See Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA1962).
Since the statute of frauds bars the enforcement of the oral contract, we reverse the final judgment and remand to the trial court for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Topp, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
Authorities Cited
- Khawly v. Evelyne Reboul and Jean Claude Reboul, 488 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Gator Shoe Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Servs. v. Doriela Taborda, 488 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)