CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, APPELLANT,
v.
RUSSELL L. SCHWALIER, 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.
Cintas Corporation sought to compel arbitration of an employee's wrongful termination claim under an arbitration clause in an employment contract. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to compel, holding that the employment contract was valid and enforceable despite the employee's argument that he received no consideration because the promised raises and benefits were not delivered.
The court held that the employment contract was valid and enforceable, and the arbitration clause could be enforced against Schwalier. The court concluded that although the contract may have been breached, it was not void, and the employer's failure to perform does not render the contract invalid for lack of consideration.
[1] A nonfinal order determining entitlement to arbitration is reviewable by appellate courts.
[2] The validity of a contract is reviewed on appeal by the de novo standard.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although the contract may have been breached, we have no reason to conclude that it is void.”
Establishes that breach of contract does not invalidate the contract itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell Schwalier was employed by Cintas Corporation and signed an employment contract approximately one year after beginning work. The contract oblig…
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 Lack Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PADOVANO, J.
This is an appeal from a nonfinal order denying a motion to compel arbitration. We conclude that the employment contract containing the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable and therefore hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion.
The present controversy arose in the context of a civil action for wrongful termination of employment. The plaintiff, Russell Schwalier, sued his employer, Cintas Corporation, alleging that he was fired from his job because he had filed a workers’ compensation claim. A retaliatory discharge, such as the one alleged here, is prohibited by section 440.205, Florida Statutes. Cintas sought to have the claim resolved in arbitration under a provision of an employment contract Schwalier signed approximately one year after he began work.
Cintas’ obligation under the contract was to retain Schwalier as an employee and to provide him with an increase in pay and benefits. Schwalier contends that he was dismissed about six months after he signed the contract and that he did not receive any increase in his compensation. Because he did not obtain anything of value, he contends that the contract is invalid for lack of consideration and, as a consequence, that the arbitration clause cannot be enforced against him.
This court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a nonfinal order determining entitlement to arbitration. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv); Hill v. Ray Carter Auto Sales, Inc., 745 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because the order at issue turns on the validity of a contract, it is subject to review on appeal by the de novo standard. See Brasington v. EMC Corp., 855 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In our view, Cintas was entitled to arbitration as a matter of law.
Although the contract may have been breached, we have no reason to conclude that it is void. Schwalier argues that he did not receive the increase in pay and benefits, but even if that is the case, Cintas’ failure to perform would not necessarily render the contract invalid for lack of consideration. Under Florida law, a failure of consideration is not alone sufficient to support a claim for rescission or cancellation of a contract; an action for damages is an adequate remedy. See 9 Fla. Jur.2d CANCELLATION § 29; see also Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rennolds v. Rennolds, 312 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
A promise, no matter how slight, qualifies as consideration if the promisor agrees to do something that he or she is not already obligated to do. See Diaz v. Rood, 851 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Here, the consideration for the contract was the promise of continued employment, increased pay and benefits. Cintas’ failure to keep this promise may support an action by Schwalier for breach of contract or a defense to a claim that Schwalier had himself breached the contract, but it does not support an argument that the contract was void.
For these reasons we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. Any claim that Schwalier has for Cintas’ alleged failure to deliver on its promised consideration may be resolved in arbitration.
Reversed.
ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tammy Gunderson for The Estate of Alan Gunderson v. Sch. Dist. OF Hillsborough Cnty. & Broadspire fka CNA Claims Plus, 937 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…gnation, but merely objected because they were not executed by the claimant prior to his death. [*779] Where the order on appeal turns on the validity of a contract, it is subject to a de novo standard of review. See Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Schwalier, 901 So. 2d 307, 308, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citing Brasington v. EMC Corp., 855 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). However, to the extent that the issue of enforcement of a workers’ compensation settlement agreement following the claimant’s death is intermingled…
-
Lloyds Underwriters & Osprey Underwriting Agency, Ltd. v. Netterstrom, 17 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…s and Osprey appealed to this court to review the order. A nonfinal order denying a motion to compel arbitration is subject to review by appeal to the district court of appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv); Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Schwalier, 901 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Because the outcome of the dispute in this case depends on an interpretation of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy and the effect of the applicable state and federal laws, the order is reviewable by the de novo stand…
-
Palm Lake P'rs II, LLC v. C & C Powerline, Inc., 38 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ne of the findings required for an award of specific performance. . "A promise, no matter how slight, qualifies as consideration if the promisor agrees to do something that he or she is not already obligated to do.” Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Schwalier, 901 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Here, under the terms of the easement and road construction agreement, Sellers agreed to convey an easement on which the access road could be constructed and Palm Lake agreed to commence construction of the access road "no…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Hill v. RAY Carter Auto Sales, Inc., 745 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Brasington v. EMC Corp., 855 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Diaz v. Rood, 851 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Rennolds v. Rennolds, 312 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- G. M. K. v. State, 312 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)