Court Opinion

ID: 9564301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:57:41.962788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:20.460031
License: Public Domain

Webb, Judge.
Summary judgment was granted against Hudson in his suit for breach of an alleged oral employment contract, negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy and tortious interference with contract. The facts, construed most favorably as they must be to Hudson, are as follows:
Hudson was vice president of Trend Mills in Rome when he was contacted in 1973 by Venture Industries about going to work with them. He was receiving a salary of $29,000 plus a bonus, stock options and numerous fringe benefits, and was reluctant to go to work for Venture. After repeated efforts by Venture’s top officers, *32Osterneck and Lipson, he agreed. An agreement was reached at a luncheon meeting and a memorandum was drawn up on a restaurant placemat. Basically, the terms were that Hudson would receive a five-year employment contract with three years guaranteed and an option to renew at the end of two years for the remaining three years. There were also stock options and other benefits. Osterneck took the placemat containing the memorandum of contract and gave it to Venture’s attorney to prepare a written contract, but it was never signed by an officer of Venture, never submitted to Hudson to sign, and insofar as the record shows, never reduced to a formal writing.
After working for Venture for two years Hudson exercised his option to renew his contract by letter to Osterneck, the president of Venture, also confirming the terms of the contract. When Doyle became operating head of Venture in 1975, he was informed that Hudson had an employment contract, but in October Doyle fired Hudson. Hudson received and cashed three checks from Venture representing salary, severance and accrued vacation pay. These were ordinary payroll checks and contained no conditions or special language. Six months later Hudson’s attorney initiated legal proceedings against Venture and Doyle for over two and one-half years salary totaling $118,654.17 alleged to be owing him under the remaining contract obligations, and for damages.
1. Under Georgia law, "[a]ny agreement (except contracts with overseers) that is not to be performed within one year. . .” must be in writing and signed by the person obligated thereunder, unless because of certain circumstances the Statute of Frauds does not apply. Code Ann. §§ 20-401 (5), 20-402. Contrary to Hudson’s assertions, the alleged oral contract involved here has not been taken out of the Statute of Frauds by part performance. "The mere fact he entered upon employment and served would not avail as part performance. Norman v. Nash, 102 Ga. App. 508 (116 SE2d 624). The part performance required to obviate the Statute of Frauds must be substantial and essential to the contract and which results in a benefit to one party and a detriment to the other. Bagwell v. Milam, 9 Ga. App. 315 (71 SE 684).
*33Thus it has been held in a similar case that a performance of services under a contract for a part of the term is not such part performance as renders it a fraud upon the party performing for the employer to refuse to comply, by discharge of that party before the expiration of the term.” Utica Tool Co. v. Mitchell, 135 Ga. App. 635, 637 (218 SE2d 650) (1975). See also Grace v. Roan, 145 Ga. App. 776 (245 SE2d 17) (1978).
The absolute determinant in the Code § 20-402 (3) exception is whether there has been such part performance as would render it a fraud if the court failed to compel performance, and Hudson has failed to establish this essential element. On the contrary, it is particularly clear that no fraud would be worked on Hudson if the alleged oral contract were not enforced. When he joined Venture he was given a raise of more than $10,000 a year from his prior job, and he received this substantially higher pay for the more than two and a half years he worked there, plus a generous amount of severance pay when he left. Nor was he required to move his family and residence a long distance to accept the job. Since there was no enforceable contract, the question of whether the final checks received and cashed by Hudson constituted an accord and satisfaction need not be reviewed.
2. Any breach of contract must arise from the contract, and does not give rise to an action for tort, whether or not such breach was negligent or wilful. See, e.g.,Pure Oil Co. v. Dukes, 101 Ga. App. 786 (115 SE2d 449) (1960); Ga. Kaolin Co. v. Walker, 54 Ga. App. 742 (189 SE 88) (1936); Manley v. Exposition Cotton Mills, 47 Ga. App. 496 (170 SE 711) (1933); Howard v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 9 Ga. App. 617 (71 SE 1017) (1911).
It is plain from the record that Doyle in terminating Hudson was acting as Venture’s president and corporate agent. No conspiracy between several employees to slander and libel Hudson was shown as in Ga. Power Co. v. Busbin, 145 Ga. App. 438 (1978), upon which Hudson strongly relies. And the element of maliciousness required by Luke v. DuPree, 158 Ga. 590 (124 SE 13) (1924), is also missing. See Lowe v. R. C. Cola Co., 132 Ga. App. 37, 42 (3) (207 SE2d 620) (1974). Futhermore, those cases involved valid written contracts, and are therefore *34inapposite. Here, as in Grace v. Roan, 145 Ga. App. 776, 778, supra, the evidence introduced by Venture "has pierced the pleadings and discloses the absence of a right of recovery.”
Submitted June 7, 1978
Decided July 14, 1978
Rehearing denied July 31, 1978
Brinson, Askew & Berry, Robert M. Brinson, Robert N. Farrar, for appellant.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Alfred A. Lindseth, D. R. Cumming, Jr., Thomas A. Cox, for appellees.
v Allegations of fraud are negated by Hudson’s own testimony, which establishes that representations made to him by Venture’s officers were neither knowingly false nor made with intent to deceive. In order to establish a cause of action for fraud the complaining party must have justifiably and reasonably relied on the misrepresentations complained of Brown v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 111 Ga. App. 164 (141 SE2d 208) (1965); Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc., 105 Ga. App. 846 (125 SE2d 717) (1962); Alpha Kappa Psi Bldg. Corp. v. Kennedy, 90 Ga. App. 587 (83 SE2d 580) (1954); Harrison v. Lee, 13 Ga. App. 346 (79 SE 211) (1913). Finally, there is no question that the promises made by Venture’s officers were prospective in nature, and "[ajctionable fraud cannot be based on statements and promises as to future events.” Ely v. Stratoflex, Inc., 132 Ga. App. 569, 571 (2) (208 SE2d 583) (1974) and cits.
Based on the facts and law the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Venture and Doyle.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., Smith, Shulman, Banke and Birdsong, JJ., concur. Bell, C. J., Deen, P. J., and McMurray, J., dissent.