New York Statute Of Frauds

20 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ebker v. TAN JAY Int'l, Ltd.
  739 F.2d 812· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury's verdict finding a joint venture between Ebker and Nygard, and that the jury's verdict on the counterclaim was not clearly erroneous.
• Backar v. W. States Producing Co. (now Hytech Energy Corporation) & Wayman W. Buchanan
  547 F.2d 876· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that proceeds from nonrecourse notes were not 'moneys invested' under the commission contract, and that New York's real estate licensing statute did not bar the finder's fee claim because oil and gas leases are personal property under New York law.
• Ginsberg Mach. Co., Inc. v. J. & H. Label Processing Corp.
  341 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the alleged oral agreement and subsequent letter did not constitute an enforceable contract because they failed to meet the requirements of the New York Statute of Frauds and lacked essential terms.
• Lindeman v. Textron
  229 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably have returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the New York Statute of Frauds did not apply to bar the claim.
• Sonnenblick-Goldman OF Miami Corp. v. Feldman
  266 So. 2d 48· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-07-25 ·cited 11×
  Two Sonnenblick-Goldman corporations appealed a jury verdict awarding $138,000 to an employee for unpaid mortgage brokerage commissions. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the New York corporation lacked sufficient contacts with Florida, that defenses were imp
• Hutner v. Greene
  734 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the express contract claim was unenforceable due to a missing material term, but the quantum meruit claim was not barred by the Statute of Frauds, and the issue of whether plaintiff acted as a licensed broker under California law required further factual deter
• Droste v. Harry Atlas Sons, Inc.
  145 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1944-11-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a recent case's pleading niceties should not override established New York law regarding agreements not within the statute of frauds.
• Ohanian v. AVIS Rent A CAR Sys., Inc.
  779 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 7×
  An oral employment contract for lifetime employment, terminable for 'just cause' that does not require employee breach, is not barred by the Statute of Frauds and can be enforced.
• Kossick v. United Fruit Co.
  275 F.2d 500· 2d Cir.· 1960-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the alleged contract was not a maritime contract and was therefore subject to the New York Statute of Frauds, rendering it void.
• Droste v. Harry Atlas Sons, Inc.
  147 F.2d 675· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should reverse its previous conclusion based on New York law interpretations.
• Cinema N. Corp. v. Plaza AT Latham Assocs. & Hoyt's Cinema Corp.
  867 F.2d 135· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-01 ·cited 4×
  Under New York law, a partnership cannot avoid an agreement signed by its officer simply because the officer lacked written authorization, as the corporate officer exception to the statute of frauds applies to partnership officers acting within the scope of business.
• Stratford Fin. Corp. & Am. Airlease Corp. v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank
  580 So. 2d 806· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-05-14 ·cited 2×
  Stratford Financial and American Airlease appealed a trial court decision holding that an oral brokerage commission agreement was unenforceable under the New York Statute of Frauds. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that because the contract's final act (the
• Hawley Fuel Coalmart, Inc. v. Steag Handel GMBH
  796 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the combination of writings was sufficient to satisfy New York's statute of frauds for a contract of guarantee, reversing the district court's decision.
• Karlin v. AVIS
  457 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the New York Statute of Frauds, which requires a signed writing to enforce agreements for finder's fees.
• Guinn Co., Inc. v. Mazza
  296 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1961-11-30 ·cited 2×
  An oral promise to guarantee payment for printing work, where the original debtor remains primarily liable, is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
• Gruber v. S-M News Co., Inc.
  208 F.2d 401· 2d Cir.· 1953-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract was not barred by the Statute of Frauds because it was capable of performance within one year.
• Alan Skop, Inc. v. Benjamin Moore, Inc.
  909 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff's oral dealership agreement claim is likely barred by the New York statute of frauds due to inconsistent representations about its duration.
• Roulley v. Inex Co. & Edward J. Kreuter
  677 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-19
  The court held that the New York Statute of Frauds precluded enforcement of the alleged contract because the signed memorandum lacked essential terms and unsigned documents could not supplement it.
• Weisse v. Engelhard Minerals & Chems. Corp.
  571 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-16
  The court held that an oral employment contract providing for a cash bonus payment in 1977, more than one year after its making, is unenforceable under the New York statute of frauds.
• LEE v. ST. JOE Paper Co.
  371 F.2d 797· 2d Cir.· 1967-01-25
  The court held that the New York Statute of Frauds, as interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals in Minichiello, barred recovery in quantum meruit for services rendered in negotiating the purchase of a business opportunity.