SIDNEY L. GROSSMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LEVY'S, A CORPORATION, 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.
Sidney Grossman appeals the dismissal of his contract breach action against Levy's department store, arguing that a one-year renewal employment contract is not barred by Florida's statute of frauds. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the statute of frauds does not render contracts void or nullity, applies only to executory contracts, and does not bar enforcement of the renewal contract which was to be performed immediately.
The statute of frauds pertains exclusively to the remedy and does not declare offending contracts void or invalid. The statute applies only to executory contracts, not executed contracts. The renewal contract, which was to commence and did commence on the day it was entered, is not within the terms of the statute and is therefore enforceable.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that Florida's statute of frauds affects only the remedy available, not the validity of the contract itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrossman was employed by Levy's on October 8, 1952, under an oral contract providing for an annual salary of $12,000 plus a percentage of net sales, r…
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 Contract Renewal cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. This complaint and its predecessors were dismissed on motion of the defendant predicated upon the ground that the contract allegedly breached was rendered unenforceable by the Florida statute of frauds, F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A. The second amended complaint alleged in essence that on October 8, 1952, the plaintiff was employed by defendant, to manage certain departments of its store, under an oral contract providing for an annual salary of $12,000 plus a percentage of net sales. At the end of one year the contract was renewable or terminable at the option of the parties.
On October 12, 1952 the plaintiff commenced work, and on October 12, 1953, entered a second year of employment under a one-year renewal contract. He continued to work until December 29, 1953, at which time he was informed that his services were no longer required. Plaintiff had been paid $4,000 under the renewal contract, leaving a balance due of $8,000. Damages were demanded in the sum of $10,000.
The appellant contends that the statute of frauds is applicable neither to the original nor the renewal contract. Appellee’s position, reduced to its essentials, is that the original contract was unenforceable under the statute and the renewal contract, which merely purported to revive the unenforceable contract, was fatally infected with the same malady, and must therefore fall with it.
Assuming, without deciding, that the original contract falls within the statute of frauds, it does not follow that it is therefore a nullity, and thus no predicate for the alleged renewal. Our statute of frauds, unlike the statutes of some states, 49 Am. Jur., Statute of Frauds, Sec. 23, does not declare an offending contract to be “void” or “invalid”. Nor does it merit this construction, in spite of some casual ' language in Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So.
341. It merely states, so far as is relevant here, that “No action shall he brought whereby * * * to change any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof.” (Italics added.) The statute thus pertains exclusively to the remedy. Appellant is not attempting to enforce the original one-year contract, which was to commence several days after it was entered, and might therefore have been offensive to the statute. He is trying to enforce the renewal contract, which was to commence, and did commence, on the day it was allegedly entered, and is therefore not within the terms of the statute. If a contract which offends the statute were absolutely void and a nullity, it could not be held, as it has long been held by this court, that the statute applies only to executory and not to executed contracts. McDowell v. Ritter, 153 Fla. 50, 13 So. 2d 612; Summerall v. Thoms, 3 Fla.
298. And the rule of the cases just cited is directly applicable here/because the original contract alleged has concededly been executed on both sides. It follows that it was error to hold the present action barred by F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A., and that the judgment appealed from must be, and it is hereby, reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Collier v. Bolling Brooks, 632 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…from its protection. Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341. We have discovered only two cases in which the Florida Supreme Court has addressed the question of whether the statute of frauds applied to employment agreements. In Grossman v. Levy’s, 81 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1955), the court held that an oral renewal of an oral one-year employment agreement, which commenced on the day the renewal was made, was not within the statute of frauds regardless of whether the original contract was unenforceable under…
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…Florida law appears to be consistent with Professor Palmer’s view. Our state’s case law holds that the statute operates only to prevent enforcement of an invalid agreement and does not operate to render such an agreement void. In Grossman v. Levy’s, 81 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1955), the supreme court stated: Our statute of frauds, unlike the statutes of some states, does not declare an offending contract to be “void” or “invalid”. Nor does it merit this construction, in spite of some casual language in Yates v. Bal…
-
Raymond A. Dionne f/d/b/a Ray's Carpets v. Columbus Mills, Inc., 311 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…court said: . The Supreme Court of Florida has long held that the statute applies only to executory and not to executed contracts. See: Summerall v. Thomas, 3 Fla. 298; McDowell v. Ritter, 153 Fla. 50, 13 So. 2d 612; Grossman v. Levy’s, Fla. 1955, 81 So. 2d 752. . . . It is equally well settled that if a complaint supports a cause of action on any grounds, as count I does here, then it should not be dismissed with prejudice. It is upon the application of this rationale that we hold that the trial court er…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1937)
- McDowell v. Halsted L. Ritter, 153 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1943)
- Summerall v. Daniel Thoms and Wife, 3 Fla. 298 (Fla. 1850)