JERRY DWORKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAMO AUTO LEASING, INC., 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.
Dworkin appealed a directed verdict in his action to recover commissions under an alleged oral employment contract with Alamo Auto Leasing. The court affirmed, holding that the oral agreement was barred by Florida's Statute of Frauds because it was for a period exceeding one year, and that Dworkin failed to present sufficient evidence to support a quantum meruit claim.
The oral employment contract is barred by Florida's Statute of Frauds (§ 725.01) because Dworkin admitted in his deposition that he was entering into an oral agreement for a period exceeding one year. Additionally, Dworkin failed to present sufficient evidence to support a quantum meruit claim for recovery.
[1] An oral employment contract that cannot be performed within one year is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
[2] A claim for commissions under an oral employment contract barred by the Statute of Frauds may not be recovered.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Dworkin, in effect, admitted in his deposition that he was entering into an oral agreement for a period in excess of one year. Therefore, his claim under the oral employment contract is barred by § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.”
Establishes the dispositive holding that the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of the oral contract due to its duration exceeding one year.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDworkin was hired as general manager by Alamo Auto Leasing and orally agreed to receive a base salary of $1,200 per month plus commissions on vehicle …
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 Recovery Of Commissions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals a judgment for the defendant entered pursuant to defendant’s motion for directed verdict in an action seeking to recover commissions pursuant to an oral employment contract.
Plaintiff, Jerry Dworkin, alleges that when defendant, Alamo Auto Leasing, Inc., hired him as general manager, they orally agreed to pay him a base salary of $1,200 per month plus a commission of 25% of the monthly profits on the sale of automobiles up to $6,000, 15% of the monthly profits over $6,000 and a $60 commission on each vehicle leased. On January 28, 1974 Dworkin began working. He received his base salary and a few commissions, but a dispute arose when he was not paid in accordance with the oral agreement. In April defendant allegedly presented Dwor-kin with a written contract for the same base salary, but for a commission of 50% of the monthly profits over $6,000, $10 for each car sold and $50 for each car leased for two years. Dworkin would not sign the contract and in May terminated his employment. He then brought suit to recover pursuant to the oral agreement, $25,000 in commissions allegedly due for the months of February, March and April. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial and at the close of Dworkin’s case, defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge granted the motion on the grounds that the oral agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds [§ 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.], and the evidence was totally insufficient to support his claim. We affirm.
Dworkin, in effect, admitted in his deposition that he was entering into-an oral agreement for a period in excess of one year. Therefore, his claim under the oral employment contract is barred by § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So, 341 (1938). Further, Dworkin’s basis for recovery is on a quantum meruit theory, and the record supports the trial judge’s finding that he failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaRUE v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc., 97 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…alty Inv. Corp. v. Gallaher, 345 So. 2d 1088,1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (holding that “in order to avoid the statute of frauds, the agreement must have been capable of performance within one year of its ‘making’ ”); Dworkin v. Alamo Auto Leasing, Inc., 334 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (noting that where Dworkin admitted in his deposition that he entered into an oral agreement for a period in excess of one year, his claim under an oral employment agreement was barred by the statute of frauds); Davis v. Ferra…
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1937)