NATHAN MANAS, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LOUIS BIELER, BERNARD BIELER AND ARTHUR BIELER, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
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.
Nathan Manas sued Southern Diversified Industries and its officers for breach of an alleged oral agreement to purchase 3,000 shares of stock (valued at $16,500) in lieu of a three-year bonus. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the oral agreement fell within Florida's statute of frauds and could not be enforced.
The court held that the oral agreement to pay a bonus for services over a three-year period falls within Florida's statute of frauds and is unenforceable. The plaintiff's performance of services was insufficient to remove the contract from the statute of frauds, and the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient grounds for equitable estoppel.
“Section 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the Florida statute of frauds provides that "[n]o action shall be brought whereby * * * to charge any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement * * * shall be in writing".”
Establishes the applicable statute of frauds requirement that contracts not performable within one year must be in writing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManas alleged that in November 1961, the defendant corporation orally agreed to purchase 3,000 shares of stock valued at $16,500 as consideration for …
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 Full Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Nathan Manas, filed a complaint in which he alleged that in consideration for his past loyalty and services and in further consideration for his future employment and service, the defendant corporation by and through its officers orally agreed, on or about November 1, 1961 to purchase for plaintiff ,3,000 shares of its stock at a value of $16,500.00 which stock purchase was to be in lieu of a $5,500.00 annual bonus agreed *481to be paid in yearly installments over the subsequent three year period.
The plaintiff further alleged in the complaint that it was represented to him that such a purchase by the corporation would be in violation of Federal Securities Exchange Commission regulations and therefore a bank loan was arranged for the plaintiff for the purchase of the stock, this loan was to be repaid with the bonus installments. The plaintiff resigned his employment in October, 1964. It was alleged that during the three year period a $2,500.00 bonus was paid. Judgment was therefore demanded in the sum of $14,000.00. The trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants.
The allegations of the plaintiff amount to an oral obligation undertaken by the defendants to pay him $16,500.00 as a bonus for his services for three years payable in annual installments of $5,500.00. This amount was in addition to his salary.
Section 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the Florida statute of frauds provides that “fn]o action shall be brought whereby * * * to charge any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement * * * shall be in writing”.
The plaintiff alleges that if the oral agreement is found to be within the statute of frauds it should nevertheless be enforced because he has fully performed his part of the agreement; and, that because he has changed his position to his detriment in obtaining a cash loan for the purchase of the stock, the defendant should be estopped to assert the statute of frauds.
The alleged oral agreement to pay a bonus for services to be performed over a period of three years is within the statute of frauds. In a situation similar to the one before us, the Second District found that the fact that the employee performed the services was not sufficient to take the contract out of the statute of frauds. Rowland v. Ewell, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 78. The facts of this case indicate that the services relied on by the plaintiff were services for which he received a regular salary and which were not exclusively referable to an agreement to pay a bonus. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not shown sufficient reason why the defendant should be estopped from asserting the statute of frauds.
The plaintiff also asserts that certain costs were erroneously taxed against him; however, no error has been shown.
Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Niagara OF Fla., Inc. v. Niagara Therapy Mfg. Corp., 231 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)….D. Fla.1962, 209 F.Supp. 339; Dove Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Hays Heating & Plumbing Co., D.C.N.D.Fla.1966, 249 F.Supp. 366; Rattan & Bamboo Shop, Inc. v. Rutter, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 11; Manas v. Southern Diversified Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 480; Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 492; Fla.1966, 190 So. 2d 777. Appellants contend that the Statute of Frauds is not applicable in this case because the contract was for the appellant Harrison’s lifetime,…
-
LaRUE v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc., 97 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…employment agreement provided that Ferraro was not to receive the promised interest in the employer’s business until after two years after his arrival in Florida, his action was barred by the statute of frauds); Manas v. S. Diversified Indus., Inc., 193 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (holding that even though the employee fully performed the services, because the alleged oral agreement to pay the employee a bonus was for services to be performed [*255] over a three-year period, the agreement fell within t…
-
Nettie Davis v. Ferraro, 303 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…nd Bamboo Shop, Inc., v. Rutter, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So. 2d 11; Rowland v. Ewell, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 78; Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla. 1966, 190 So. 2d 777; Manas v. Southern Diversified Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1967, 193 So. 2d 480; Niagara of Florida, Inc. v. Niagara Therapy Manufacturing Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 277; Keller v. Penovich, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 243; Lewin v. U. S. Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1973, 272 So. 2d 183. Therefore, the final judgment un…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rowland v. Ewell, 174 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)