Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd.

197 So. 2d 333
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 4, 1967
Docket66-590
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 197 So. 2d 333 (Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd., 197 So. 2d 333 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

197 So.2d 333 (1967)

Benjamin SHER, Appellant,
v.
SHOWER DOOR COMPANY OF AMERICA, LTD., a Georgia Limited Partnership, and Robert Robbins, General Partner, Associated and Doing Business under the Name and Style of Shower Door Company of America, Appellees.

No. 66-590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 4, 1967.

John F. Muckerman, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and Melvin T. Boyd, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. The action sought damages for breach of a contract of employment.

In May of 1964, the appellant was hired by the appellees as a field manager, the terms of said employment being spelled out in a letter between the parties, with the plaintiff to receive a weekly salary plus a percentage of the net profits on certain sales. The contract specified no duration of employment. On February 2, 1965, the appellant's services were terminated without cause and without advance notice. As a result, the appellant brought the action, alleging that he had a written contract of employment which was to run for a reasonable length of time and which could not be terminated without reasonable notice. See: Florida-Georgia Chemical Co. v. National Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 752; Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., Fla. 1965, 173 So.2d 687. The appellees moved to dismiss on the ground that the alleged contract upon which the suit was brought was one for an indefinite term, which was subject to be terminated at will. See: Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311, 31 So. 246; Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240; Hope v. National Airlines, Inc., Fla.App. 1957, 99 So.2d 244; Wynne v. Ludman Corporation, Fla. 1955, 79 So.2d 690. We affirm.

No term of the employment was expressed in the letter agreement. Therefore, the employment relationship was *334 terminable at will by action of either party. See: Knudsen v. Green, supra; Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 909. The fact that the plaintiff was to share in the net profits upon the sale above certain minimal amounts does not alter this general rule. See: Livermore v. Mandeville & Thompson, Inc. (5th Cir.1938), 93 F.2d 563; Allgood v. Feckoury, 36 Ga. App. 42, 135 S.E. 314; Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 139 S.E.2d 249; 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant, § 31.

The final order of dismissal here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sanders v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co.
501 So. 2d 1201 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1986)
Crawford v. DAVID SHAPIRO & CO., PA
490 So. 2d 993 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Forde v. Royal's, Inc.
537 F. Supp. 1173 (S.D. Florida, 1982)
In Re Zotti
16 B.R. 625 (S.D. Florida, 1981)
DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
360 So. 2d 134 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Atkinson v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
519 F.2d 1112 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
Harrison v. Jack Eckerd Corporation
342 F. Supp. 348 (M.D. Florida, 1972)
Hoffman v. Robinson
213 So. 2d 267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 So. 2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sher-v-shower-door-company-of-america-ltd-fladistctapp-1967.