Terminable At Will Contract

33 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone
  389 So. 2d 656· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-09-24 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the defendant should have been granted a directed verdict because competition for business, even if intentional and malicious, is not tortious interference when the contract is terminable at will and the interference is privileged by the interest in acquiring
• Flint v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
  143 F.2d 923· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to move for a directed verdict, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its jury charge.
• Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc.
  418 So. 2d 1074· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a broad temporary injunction against soliciting franchisees of a competitor was not overly broad and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• Florida-Georgia Chem. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labs., Inc.
  153 So. 2d 752· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-05-23 ·cited 39×
  Florida-Georgia Chemical Company challenged the dismissal of its third amended complaint alleging breach of an exclusive distribution agreement with National Laboratories. The court held that while indefinite-term exclusive agency contracts are terminable at will, a party can sti
• Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Greater Miami, Inc.
  629 So. 2d 252· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-12-14 ·cited 29×
  Two cardiac surgeons appealed the dismissal of their complaint against a hospital and its new cardiothoracic surgery chairman, alleging tortious interference, civil conspiracy, restraint of trade, and breach of contract. The court affirmed dismissal of negligence and restraint of
• Hunt Foods, Inc. v. Wellington Phillips and H. W. Liholm
  248 F.2d 23· 9th Cir.· 1957-08-07 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court should have awarded interest on the trade acceptances from their maturity date and that the appellant is estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds and the Equal Dignities Rule as defenses.
• Ag-Chem Equip. Co., Inc. v. Hahn, Inc.
  480 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1973-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions on damages for the recoupment and Robinson-Patman claims, requiring a new trial on those issues. The court affirmed the defamation of credit judgment and the judgment n.o.v. on the exclusivity claim.
• Atchison v. Andrews
  211 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1954-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as an employee, was not required to have a contractor's license to sue for breach of contract, and that the jury's award of damages was supported by the evidence.
• Fulton v. Isadore Hecht
  580 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 22×
  A dog track's refusal to renew a booking contract, absent a purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, is not a violation of antitrust laws, and a party cannot claim tortious interference with administrative proceedings when the harm is to the state, not the individual.
• P. S. & E. Inc. v. Selastomer Detroit, Inc.
  470 F.2d 125· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 20×
  A contract of indefinite duration for an exclusive selling agency, where the agent incurs expenses and devotes time and labor without a sufficient opportunity to recoup, is not terminable at will without compensation for such expenses and efforts.
• W.K.T. Distrib. Co. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.
  746 F.2d 1333· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the distribution contract was terminable at will and remanded for consideration of recoupment damages. It also remanded for recalculation of fraud damages under Minnesota's out-of-pocket rule.
• State OF S.D. v. Kan. City S. Indus., Inc.
  880 F.2d 40· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that South Dakota lacked standing to bring a federal antitrust claim and that its state law claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship also failed.
• Cambee's Furniture, Inc. v. Doughboy Recreational, Inc.
  825 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a minimum purchase requirement at bona fide wholesale prices does not constitute a franchise fee under the South Dakota Franchise Act, and that ordinary business relationships do not create fiduciary duties. However, a distributorship agreement without a fixed
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Grovier-Starr Produce Co.
  128 F.2d 146· 10th Cir.· 1942-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of a valid contract with a specific duration was supported by substantial evidence and that the agent had apparent authority to bind the principal.
• LaRUE v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc.
  97 So. 3d 251· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-08-22 ·cited 9×
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against an employee who claimed she was promised a 25% ownership interest in her employer if she worked there for three years. The court held that the alleged oral employment agreement was barred by Florida's statute of
• A. R. E. E. A., Inc. v. Goldstein
  411 So. 2d 310· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×
• Dahly Tool Co. v. Vt. TAP & DIE Co.
  742 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to commissions on orders placed before termination but filled afterward, nor on orders placed pursuant to blanket orders negotiated near termination, as the appellant failed to allege procuring cause and neither the contract nor
• Ahern v. Boeing Co.
  701 F.2d 142· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the privilege of competition does not protect interference with existing at-will contracts when a third party induces a breach or interference.
• Burton v. Hitachi Am., Ltd.
  504 F.2d 721· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that damages for loss of profits were too speculative, but affirmed damages for actual outlays and punitive damages for tortious interference and conspiracy.
• Chapman v. Potomac Chem. Co., Inc.
  159 F.2d 459· D.C. Cir.· 1947-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that res judicata bars a second suit for damages arising from a single breach of contract when all damages could have been claimed in the first suit.
• Hicks v. Freeman
  397 F.2d 193· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the change in compensation method for tobacco inspectors did not violate any employment contract or regulatory procedures.
• DELTA Servs. & Equip., Inc. v. Ryko Mfg. Co.
  908 F.2d 7· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 2×
  A distributorship agreement with specific termination provisions for default or sales volume failure is still a contract of indefinite duration terminable at will upon reasonable notice, absent unequivocal language to the contrary.
• Perez v. Rivero
  534 So. 2d 914· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed a judgment for the balance due on a promissory note and denied a set-off for damages, finding that the defendant's claim of tortious interference with a contract terminable at will was not actionable as it constituted lawful competition.
• Bluesky Greenland Env't Solutions, LLC v. 21st Century Planet Fund, LLC
  1992 WL 180693· S.D. Fla.· 2013-12-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendants engaged in fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference, thus denying the motion for summary judgment.
• Ahern v. Boeing Co.
  539 F. Supp. 1210· M.D. Fla.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that even where a contract is terminable at will, allegations of intentional and unjustified interference causing damage establish a prima facie case of tortious interference, but such interference is privileged and justified as a matter of law if motivated by the
• Eby v. Levine
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-01-06
  The court accepted the magistrate judge's report with clarifications, denying Levine's motion for partial summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' motion.
• Williams v. Heritage Operating, L.P.
  23 So. 3d 806· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-12-02
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether 'service' in the contract provision includes tank rental.
• Centro Nautico Representacoes Nauticas v. Int'l Marine Co-Op, Ltd.
  719 So. 2d 967· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-10-14
  In this maritime business dispute, the court reversed a jury award of future damages for breach of an oral boat supply contract between a manufacturer and distributor, finding the contract unenforceable under the statute of frauds beyond goods already sold and accepted. The court
• Bayer v. Boles
  697 So. 2d 899· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-07-11
• Perry R. Pennington Co. v. T.R. Miller Co.
  994 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-28
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order remanding the case to state court was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
• ALL Line, Inc. v. Rabar Corp.
  919 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-04
  The court held that damages for breach of a terminable-at-will contract are limited to pre-termination losses, and future lost profits are not recoverable. Interest on past-due invoices was properly awarded.
• Bartolomeo v. S.B. Thomas, Inc.
  889 F.2d 530· 4th Cir.· 1989-11-17
  A distributor who has recouped their investment and made profits has had a reasonable opportunity to operate, and their distributorship is terminable at will without violating North Carolina law. Furthermore, mere breaches of contract, even with aggravating circumstances, do not
• Allen v. OIL Shale Corp.
  570 F.2d 154· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-13
  The court held that a directed verdict was properly granted for the defendants on claims of fraudulent inducement, tortious interference, and antitrust violations.