MARIE ANDRE
v.
TARGET
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.
A party who knowingly and voluntarily executes a contract is bound by its terms unless they can demonstrate they were prevented from reading it or induced by the other party's statements to refrain from reading it.
[1] A party cannot defend against enforcement of a written contract solely on the ground that she signed it without reading it, unless she can demonstrate she was prevented f…
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“Florida courts, however, will enforce the terms of contracts that are knowingly and voluntarily executed because Floridians have a right to secure their own destiny and a right to expect that their lawfully enacted contracts will be enforced”
Court's statement of Florida contract law principle
Marie Andre brought an appeal from a Florida Commission on Human Relations order regarding an employment dispute with Target. The case involved the en…
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 Contract Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Mavroleon v. Orrego, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D2167, 2022 WL 14672755, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 26, 2022) (“Florida courts, however, will enforce the terms of contracts that are knowingly and voluntarily executed because Floridians have a right to secure their own destiny and a right to expect that their lawfully enacted contracts will be enforced”) (citing Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344, 347-48 (Fla. 1977) (“It has long been held in Florida that one is bound by his contract. Unless one can show facts and circumstances to demonstrate that she was prevented from reading the contract, or that he was induced by statements of the other party to refrain from reading the contract, it is binding. No party to a written contract in this state can defend against its enforcement on the sole ground that he signed it without reading it”)). See also Myricks v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 480 F. 3d 1036, 1040-41 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily released his pending Title VII claims when he signed a severance agreement) (citing Puentes v. UPS, 86 F. 3d 196, 198 (11th Cir. 1996) (“When an employee knowingly and voluntarily releases an employer from liability for Title VII and § 1981 claims with a full understanding of the terms of the agreement, he is bound by that agreement.”))
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andre v. Target (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…arty to refrain from reading the contract, it is binding. No party to a written contract in this state can defend against its enforcement on the sole ground that he signed it without reading it”)). See also Myricks v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 480 F. 3d 1036, 1040-41 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily released his pending Title VII claims when he signed a severance agreement) (citing Puentes v. UPS, 86 F. 3d 196, 198 (11th Cir. 1996) (“When an employee knowingly and volunt…
Authorities Cited
- Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)
- Puentes v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 86 F.3d 196 (11th Cir. 1996)
- Myricks v. Fed. Reserve Bank OF Atlanta, 480 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2007)