(Appellant) appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) order holding that the accident that caused the death of Appellee Donald Hawley (Hawley) is not compensable in Florida, because Hawley’s employment agreement is based on a unilateral contract that could be formed solely by Hawley’s performance in Missouri. Appellant argues Hawley’s claim is compensable under Florida law, because such agreement is a bilateral contract executed in Florida, where the last necessary signature to complete the contract was obtained. Appellees argue the agreement was and the other party accepts and signs the contract, a binding contract results. See Skinner v. Haugseth, 426 So.2d 1127, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see also Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So.2d 499, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Hawley signed the
holding connecticut law applied where contract negotiations took place in new york and texas agreement was signed by one party in texas forwarded to the other partys headquarters in connecticut and last act necessary to complete the contract ie the signing by the last party was performed in connecticut holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york recognizing that because  the drafters of the connecticut penal code relied heavily upon    the penal code of new york  it is appropriate to look to new york statutory and case law for guidance in interpreting connecticut penal code