Katz v. Custom Spray Prods., Inc., 309 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Katz v. Custom Spray Prods., Inc., 309 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“verbal contract for services to begin in the future and continue for a year is void under the statute of frauds.”
14 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: BMC-The Benchmark Management Co. v. Ceebraid-Signal Corp. (ca11, 2008-09-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) BMC-The Benchmark Management Co. v. Ceebraid-Signal Corp. (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
verbal contract for services to begin in the future and continue for a year is void under the statute of frauds.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mark Vernon v. Assurance Forensic Accounting, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Morgan is consistent with the well-established rule that “a verbal contract for services to begin in the future and continue for a year is void under the Statute of Frauds.” (Emphasis supplied.) Katz v. Custom Spray Products, 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ) (1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Katz v. Custom Spray Prods., 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ) (1983); Lewis v. Southern Realty Invest.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stedry v. Summit National Bank
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
We do not agree. “ ‘In order to remove the alleged oral contract from the Statute of Frauds “(t)he part performance shown must be consistent with the presence of a contract and inconsistent with the lack of a contract.” (Cit.)’ Katz v. Custom Spray Products, 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ) (1983).” Studdard v. George D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wheeling v. RING RADIO COMPANY
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Co. v. Maddox, 261 Ga. 309, 310 (1) ( 404 SE2d 554 ); Gatins v. NCR Corp., 180 Ga. App. 595, 598 , supra; Katz v. Custom Spray Products, 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Studdard v. George D. Warthen Bank
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
“In order to remove the alleged oral contract from the Statute of Frauds ‘(t)he part performance shown must be consistent with the presence of a contract and inconsistent with the lack of a contract.’ [Cit.]” Katz v. Custom Spray Products, 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ) (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'NEAL v. Home Town Bank of Villa Rica (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hartrampf v. C&S Realty Investors, 157 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 278 SE2d 750 ) (1981) (where certain terms were to be negotiated in the future the agreement lacked sufficient specificity to be enforced). 5 163 Ga. 352 ( 136 SE 143 ) (1926). 6 Id. 7 Id. at 352-353 ; see also Whitmire v. Watkins, 245 Ga. 713, 714 ( 267 SE2d 6 ) (1980) (promise made after alleged consideration was given does not create contract). 8 Bankers Trust, 163 Ga. at 353 . 9 Katz v. Custom Spray Products, 168 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 309 SE2d 663 ) (1983); OCGA § 13-5-30 (5). 10 See OCGA § 13-5-31. 11 Baxley Veneer &c…
Katz
v.
Custom Spray Products, Inc.
66875.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 17, 1983.
309 S.E.2d 663
Matthew J. Blender, for appellant., Robert G. Holt, Vickie Cheek Lyall, for appellee.
McMurray, Shulman, Birdsong.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a contract action predicated upon an alleged oral contract of employment. It is undisputed that there is no written memorandum of the alleged contract signed by an agent of defendant.

[*452] Decided October 17, 1983. Matthew J. Blender, for appellant. Robert G. Holt, Vickie Cheek Lyall, for appellee.

Following discovery, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, summary judgment. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff appeals. Held:

Plaintiffs evidence shows that the contract was made on April 13,1979, in regard to a term of employment of one year beginning on April 30,1979. Generally, a verbal contract for services to begin in the future and continue for a year is void under the Statute of Frauds. Slater v. Jackson, 163 Ga. App. 342 (2) (294 SE2d 557); OCGA § 13-5-30 (5) (formerly Code § 20-401 (5)). Although plaintiff left his prior position, moved to Atlanta from the New York area and entered upon his employment with defendant, such was not sufficient part performance under OCGA § 13-5-31 (3) (formerly Code § 20-402 (3)) to remove the alleged oral contract from the Statute of Frauds. Hudson v. Venture Indus., 243 Ga. 116 (252 SE2d 606); Slater v. Jackson, 163 Ga. App. 342 (2), supra.

In order to remove the alleged oral contract from the Statute of Frauds “[t]he part performance shown must be consistent with the presence of a contract and inconsistent with the lack of a contract.” Hudson v. Venture Indus., 243 Ga. 116, 118, supra. Although the compensation, including fringe benefits, provided by defendant to plaintiff is in several respects consistent with the alleged oral contract, the record contains no evidence of part performance inconsistent with the lack of a contract.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.