BENJAMIN SHER, APPELLANT,
v.
SHOWER DOOR COMPANY OF AMERICA, LTD., A GEORGIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND ROBERT ROBBINS, GENERAL PARTNER, ASSOCIATED AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SHOWER DOOR COMPANY OF AMERICA, 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.
An employment contract with no specified duration is terminable at will by either party.
Appellant was hired as a field manager with salary plus a percentage of net profits, but the contract specified no duration. His services were termina…
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. The action sought damages for breach of a contract of employment.
In May of 1964, the appellant was hired by the appellees as a field manager, the terms of said employment being spelled out in a letter between the parties, with the plaintiff to receive a weekly salary plus a percentage of the net profits on certain sales. The contract specified no duration of employment. On February 2, 1965, the appellant’s services were terminated without cause and without advance notice. As a result, the appellant brought the action, alleging that he had a written contract of employment which was to run for a reasonable length of time and which could not be terminated without reasonable notice. See: Florida-Georgia Chemical Co. v. National Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 752; Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., Fla.1965, 173 So.2d 687. The appel-lees moved to dismiss on the ground that the alleged contract upon which the suit was brought was one for an indefinite term, which was subject to be terminated at will. See: Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311, 31 So. 246; Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240; Hope v. National Airlines, Inc., Fla.App.1957, 99 So.2d 244; Wynne v. Ludman Corporation, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 690. We affirm.
No term of the employment was expressed in the letter agreement. Therefore, the employment relationship was *334terminable at will by action of either party. See: Knudsen v. Green, supra; Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 909. The fact that the plaintiff was to share in the net profits upon the sale above certain minimal amounts does not alter this general rule. See: Livermore v. Mandeville & Thompson, Inc. (5th Cir. 1938), 93 F.2d 563; Allgood v. Feckoury, 36 Ga.App. 42, 135 S.E. 314; Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 139 S.E.2d 249; 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant, § 31.
The final order of dismissal here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeMARCO v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 360 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…party or indefinite, then either party for any reason may terminate it at any time and no action may be maintained for breach of the employment contract. Wynne v. Ludman Corporation, 79 So. 2d 690 (Fla.1955); Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, 197 So. 2d 333 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Critchlow v. WFC Mortgage Company, Inc., 315 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The employment agreement in the case at bar having been for an indefinite time, Publix could terminate DeMarco for any reason without incurring liability.…
-
Hoffman v. Robinson, 213 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…268] the breach of an employment contract. It is clear under the theory sued upon that the plaintiff could recover only if the written contract provided a definite period of employment. See Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd., Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 333, and cases cited therein. The appellant contends that since paragraph four, subsection (c), of the contract provides that “this agreement shall remain in force for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date hereof,” the contract either provid…
-
Terence B. Crawford v. David Shapiro & Co., P.A., 490 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…It is well established that, where there is no provision for the duration of employment, the employment contract is terminable at the will of either party, Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240 (1934); Sher v. Shower Door Co. of America, Ltd., 197 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hope v. National Airlines, Inc., 99 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957), cert. denied, 102 So. 2d 728 (Fla.1958), and that a party to a terminable-at-will employment contract ordinarily has no cause of action for the other party’s deci…
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
- Waldemar Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1934)
- Florida-Georgia Chem. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labs., Inc., 153 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Savannah v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1901)
- Hope v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 99 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, 176 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Wynne v. Ludman Corp., 79 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1955)
- Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 173 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1965)
- Livermore v. Mandeville & Thompson, Inc., 93 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1938)