Stratford Financial Corp v. Security Pacific National Bank
Opinion
We find no error in the trial court holding that the underlying brokerage contract between a New York resident, and a Florida corporation, was an oral agreement,1 governed by the law of the State of New York, and non-enforceable, because of the New York Statute of Frauds2.
The brokerage commission was to be payable out of the proceeds of any closing. The closing took place in New York, there[807] fore, this being the last act to complete the contract, it was a New York contract. See e.g. Charles L. Bowman & Co. v. Erwin, 468 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir.1972); Center Chemical Co. v. Avril, Inc., 392 F.2d 289 (5th Cir.1968); Kane v. Hallmark Ins. Co., 409 F.Supp. 467 (S.D.Fla.1976); Goodman v. Olsen, 305 So.2d 753 (Fla.1974); Wingold v. Horowitz, 292 So.2d 585 (Fla.1974); Ray-Hof Agencies, Inc. v. Petersen, 123 So.2d 251 (Fla.1960); Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So.2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Andrews v. Continental Ins. Co., 444 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Confederation Life Association v. Vega Y Arminan, 207 So.2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); 1 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 97, (Third Edition 1957). Moreover, there is no right to recover upon an oral brokerage commission in the State of New York. See Philo Smith & Co., Inc. v. Uslife Corp., 554 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.1977); Hardy-Latham v. Wellons, 415 F.2d 674 (4th Cir.1968); Freedman v. Chemical Const. Corp., 56 A.D.2d 514, 391 N.Y.S.2d 122 (N.Y.App.Div.1977); Roberts v. Champion International, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 773, 382 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y.App.Div.1976); Title 7, New York General Obligations Law, § 5-701 (McKinney).
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
580 So. 2d 806 (Stratford Financial Corp v. Security Pacific National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.