Opinion ID: 71167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Implied Contract Claims

Text: 48 UCP raised two similar claims, breach of contract implied-in-fact (quantum meruit) and breach of contract implied-in-law (unjust enrichment). 7 UCP argues that it provided Trumpet Vine with research, experience and confidential and proprietary information regarding Del Monte and arranged for Trumpet Vine's entry into the bidding process. UCP contends that Trumpet Vine requested and accepted the services and information and should compensate UCP for the benefits received.
49 Florida has traditionally applied the lex loci contractus rule for choice of law determinations regarding issues of contract law. Fioretti, 53 F.3d at 1235; Goodman v. Olsen, 305 So.2d 753, 755 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 839, 96 S.Ct. 68, 46 L.Ed.2d 58 (1975); Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 So.2d 499, 500-01 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982). Under the lex loci contractus method issues concerning the validity and substantive obligations of contracts are governed by the law of the place where the contract is made. Ray-Hof Agencies, Inc. v. Petersen, 123 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla.1960); Jemco, 400 So.2d at 501. A contract is made where the last act necessary to complete the contract is performed. Jemco, 400 So.2d at 500. 50 While Florida has adopted the significant contacts approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for tort actions, see Bishop, 389 So.2d at 1001, the Florida Supreme Court has continued to apply the traditional lex loci contractus approach for contract actions. In Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined to adopt the Restatement approach and applied the lex loci contractus rule. Although the Florida Supreme Court specifically limited its decision to contracts for automobile insurance, the Florida appellate courts have continued to apply the rule to other areas of contract law as well. See In re Estate of Nicole Santos, 648 So.2d 277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995)(validity of an antenuptial contract); Stratford Fin. Corp. v. Security Pac. Nat. Bank, 580 So.2d 806 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (enforceability of a brokerage contract). Accordingly, we apply the lex loci contractus approach. 8 51 UCP argues that the implied contract was made when UCP conferred and Trumpet Vine received the benefits, i.e. participation in the due diligence meeting and access to the proprietary information, which occurred in Florida. The district court, however, determined that the last necessary act in this cause of action was the acquisition of Del Monte which took place in New York. In Stratford, the Florida District Court of Appeal held an oral brokerage contract unenforceable under New York law. 580 So.2d at 806. Under the agreement, the brokerage commission was to be payable out of the proceeds of any closing. Id. The court of appeal determined that the closing was thus the last act necessary to complete the contract. Id. at 806-07. Similarly, UCP alleges that it should have received stock and a managerial role in return for its assistance. As in Stratford, compensation could not be awarded without a closing. As the site of the closing, New York law governs. 9
52 The district court concluded that because there was no written compensation agreement between the parties, New York's statute of frauds barred the claims. New York's statute of frauds provides: 53 Every agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking: ... (10) Is a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating a loan, ... or of a business opportunity,.... Negotiating includes procuring an introduction to a party to the transaction or assisting in the negotiation or consummation of the transaction. This provision shall apply to a contract implied in fact or in law.... 54 N.Y.Gen.Oblig.Law § 5-701(a)(10) (McKinney 1989). 55 UCP argues that the statute of frauds is inapplicable because UCP is not seeking a set monetary fee, but rather seeks an equity interest in the acquired company and a role in its management. The New York statute of frauds expressly includes contracts to pay compensation and is not limited to monetary fees. While UCP correctly notes that section 5-701(a)(10) does not extend to agreements between parties in a joint venture, see Dura v. Walker, Hart & Co., 27 N.Y.2d 346, 318 N.Y.S.2d 289, 291-93, 267 N.E.2d 83, 85 (1971); Natuzzi v. Rabady, 177 A.D.2d 620, 576 N.Y.S.2d 326, 328 (1991), UCP has not alleged nor does the record support the existence of a joint venture between UCP and the defendants in this action. See Natuzzi, 576 N.Y.S.2d at 328; Orderline Wholesale Dist., Inc. v. Gibbons, Green, van Amerongen, Ltd., 675 F.Supp. 122, 126 (S.D.N.Y.1987). UCP's complaint merely alleges, it was implied that the services and information were given and received with the expectation that UCP would be compensated for them and that UCP conferred a substantial benefit on defendants for which UCP ought to be compensated. Accordingly UCP's implied contract claims are not beyond the scope of New York's statute of frauds. See Orderline Wholesale Dist., 675 F.Supp. at 127-28. 56 UCP further argues that even if the statute of frauds applies, there are outstanding issues of fact surrounding the part performance exception to the statute which preclude granting summary judgment on this basis. The district court correctly rejected this argument. [P]art performance may only be asserted to overcome the defense of the Statute of Frauds in an action for specific performance of the contract, and may not be raised, as here, in an action to recover damages.... Papell v. Calogero, 114 A.D.2d 403, 494 N.Y.S.2d 127, 129 (1985), mod. on other grounds, 68 N.Y.2d 705, 506 N.Y.S.2d 309, 497 N.E.2d 676 (1986); see also Spodek v. Riskin, 150 A.D.2d 358, 540 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (1989); Mauala v. Milford Management Corp., 559 F.Supp. 1000, 1004 (S.D.N.Y.1983). In any event, under New York law, the doctrine of part performance may be invoked only if the complaining party's actions can be characterized as unequivocally referable to the agreement alleged. Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 463 N.Y.S.2d 409, 409-10, 450 N.E.2d 215, 216 (1983). The actions must be  'unintelligible or at least extraordinary,' explainable only with reference to the oral agreement. Id.; Burns v. McCormick, 233 N.Y. 230, 135 N.E. 273 (1922). Here, the nondisclosure agreement between the parties provided that the parties intend to enter into discussions slating to possible acquisitions.... The part performance exception does not apply when the performance undertaken by plaintiff is also explainable as preparatory steps taken with a view toward consummation of an agreement in the future. Anostario, 463 N.Y.S.2d at 410, 450 N.E.2d at 216; see also McDermott v. Town of Goshen, 207 A.D.2d 612, 615 N.Y.S.2d 525, 527 (1994); Ghura v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency, 122 A.D.2d 106, 504 N.Y.S.2d 503, 504 (1986).