Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Browning v. Poirier

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 8, 2013No. 5D12-1823Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTorpy, C.J.

My colleagues hold for the first time in Florida that a garden-variety terminable-at-will contract violates the statute of frauds, as a matter of law, even though the parties could have fully performed it within one year or cancelled it at any time. The fact that the contractual relationship lasted more than a year is completely irrelevant. The contract was either valid or invalid on the day it was made. Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341, 344-45 (1937) (fact that performance exceeded one year is not material to determination of whether contract violated statute of frauds). Nor does the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Yates v. BallSupreme Court of Florida · 1937
  2. McPherson v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Niday v. NidayTexas Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. SchaferDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  5. Berger v. JacksonSupreme Court of Florida · 1945

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API