RICHARD D. TALBOTT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NICK MORLEY, DEFENDANT
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 Florida District Court of Appeal declined to answer certified questions from a lower court regarding the enforceability of an oral employment contract under the Statute of Frauds and whether quantum meruit could be pursued if the contract was unenforceable. The appellate court found the questions were not properly certified for review.
The court declined to answer the certified questions. The questions were not properly certified for review under the Florida Appellate Rules.
“We decline to answer the questions on the basis that they are not proper for certification under Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.”
This quote establishes the court's decision and the primary reason for it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff alleged an oral employment contract for two years, from January 1964 to June 1965. The defendant admitted the contract's duration. The p…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
There are before us two questions certified from the Circuit Court of Dade County. They are:
“1. When a complaint alleges an oral contract of employment under which the plaintiff was allegedly employed from January, 1964 until June, 1965, and which alleged oral contract is admitted by the plaintiff to have been of two years duration, is such contract unenforceable by virtue of the Florida Statute of Frauds, Chapter 725.01, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.]?
“2. If the alleged oral contract of employment which is the basis of plaintiff’s complaint is unenforceable by virtue of the statute of frauds, may the plaintiff bring an amended complaint for the same damages alleged in his original complaint on the basis of quantum meruit?”
We decline to answer the questions on the basis that they are not proper for certification under Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. See Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 566.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Babsdon Co. v. Thrifty Parking Co., 149 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Sigmund T. Jaworski v. The City OF Opa-Locka, 149 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)