SIBONEY SHOE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH C. MILLER, 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.
Siboney Shoe Corporation appealed a judgment for damages in favor of an employee who was discharged without cause. The key issue was whether an oral employment contract for more than one year satisfied the statute of frauds despite the memorandum lacking a specific start date. The court affirmed, finding the memorandum sufficiently indicated the commencement time through contextual provisions.
The memorandum sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds despite the absence of an explicit start date. The memorandum adequately indicated the time for commencement of employment through contextual provisions requiring Florida residency by January 1, 1973, and providing for interim airfare payments, which necessarily implied employment would begin well before that date.
[1] A memorandum satisfies the statute of frauds for an employment contract exceeding one year if it sufficiently indicates a commencement date, even if that date is not expl…
[2] A memorandum is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds when it contains a provision requiring the employee to become a resident of a specific state by a certain date…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Following a statement therein that the period of the employment would end on December 31, 1973, it was stated: 'At this time we don't know when he will start so you should leave blank the starting date.'”
Establishes that the memorandum expressly addressed the absence of a start date rather than merely omitting it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff entered into an oral employment contract with defendant Siboney Shoe Corporation for a position ending December 31, 1973. A signed memorandu…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is by the defendant below from an adverse judgment entered following trial without a jury. The plaintiff declared on an oral contract of employment which involved a period of more than a year, relying on a memorandum signed (through an agent) by the party to be charged. Plaintiff alleged he was discharged without cause during the period of employment, for which damages were sought. The trial court held the memorandum was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Judgment for damages was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
The appellant contends the court erred in holding the claim was not barred by the statute of frauds. The appellant’s argument centers on the absence in the memorandum of a date for commencement of the employment, for which the termination date shown in the memorandum was more than a year after the oral contract, and more than a year from the date the plaintiff actually commenced the employment. The memorandum specified the employment would be for a period ending on December 31, 1973. The plaintiff commenced performance of his duties in such employment in September of 1972.
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, we regard the memorandum as sufficiently indicating a time for commencement of the employment. The memorandum did not simply fail to state or make any reference to a time of commencement of the employment. Following a statement therein that the period of the employment would end on December 31, 1973, it was stated: “At this time we don’t know when he will start so you should leave blank the starting date.” As to that feature, in testimony, the plaintiff explained that the exact date the employment would commence was not known because he had matters to clear up, in Massachusetts where he resided, which would take some time. However, another provision in the memorandum showed that the inception of the employment was to occur some time well prior to January 1, 1973, viz: “Siboney also agrees that his family and himself must be firm residents of Florida not later than January 1, 1973. But until he and his family become residents of Dade or Broward county, Siboney will pay his air fare once every two weeks from Miami to Boston and back”. In conformity therewith, as stated above, the employment commenced in September of 1972.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.