The elements for a breach of contract action are: “the existence of a contract, a. breach thereof, and damages.” Miller v. Nifakos, 655 So.2d 192, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (per curiam). With respect to breach of the Molson agreement, Anthony fails to point to any record evidence of an “agreement.” In fact, Salvatore Anthony Italiano testified that Anthony was not entitled to rights to Molson under the distributorship, or any other, agreement. (Exhibit E, p. 440). Even if the evidence somehow supported a finding of an agreement, the Court agrees with Miller that any separate, oral distributorship agreement would be unenforceable under Florida’s Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat § 725.01 (1995). All Brand Importers, Inc., v. Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc., 864 F.2d 748, 749 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Court rejects Anthony’s bare assertion
holding that section 72501 bars enforcement of an oral contract that was intended by a distributor and its customer to last longer than a year even though the contract could have been terminated for cause within a year holding that a termination clause allowing for termination of a distributorship contract at the end of any year could not be modified by the duty of good faith even though the manufacturer relied on the contract and invested 1 million in facilitating the needs of the contract holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated  holding that contract for purchase of real property terminated by its own terms upon buyers giving of a certain notice and that therefore the contract was no longer valid and enforceable holding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on an oral representation that the atwill provision of his employment contract did not apply to him when he entered into the contract that expressly contradicted the oral representations