PATRICK M. REDMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
PROSPER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; PROSPER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. THOMAS REDMOND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence and the damages measure was correct.
[1] A seller's compliance with conditions precedent and readiness, ability, and willingness to perform are sufficient to establish their performance under a contract.
[2] A buyer's default on a contract for sale can result in liability for damages to the seller.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Prosper, Inc. sued defendants Patrick and Thomas Redmond for breach of a restaurant sale contract. Defendants counterclaimed for plaintiff's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Contract (Counterclaim) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*813] PER CURIAM.
By Appeal No. 78-157, Patrick M. Redmond, one of the defendants below, seeks reversal of an adverse money judgment. By Appeal No. 78-373, Prosper, Inc., the Plaintiff below, contends the court erred in entering judgment in favor of defendant Thomas Redmond.
The action filed by Prosper was for damages for breach of a contract for sale of a restaurant business, by it to defendants. The defendants Patrick and Thomas Redmond answered. They denied the alleged breach of the sales contract, and by counterclaim alleged the plaintiff seller breached the contract, and claimed damages.
The judgment entered on non-jury trial awarded the plaintiff damages against the defendant Patrick Redmond, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from defendant Thomas Redmond, and denied recovery on the defendants’ counterclaim. Those rulings in the judgment were based on findings made by the court that the seller complied with the conditions precedent and was ready, able and willing to perform; that the defendant Patrick Redmond had defaulted the contract; and, on conflicting evidence, that an offer which the seller had made to rescind had been accepted by the defendant, Thomas Redmond. Such findings, which we hold are supported by competent substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed on appeal. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Burch v. Burch, 352 So. 2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
The trial court was not shown to have applied a wrong rule as to the damages. The measure used was the excess of the contract sales price over the market value as of the time of the breach, less the amount previously paid. Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So. 2d 538, 541 (1948); Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1972). That was supported by evidence of the amount for which the business subsequently was sold, with testimony relating to the nature of that sale, plus certain opinion evidence with regard to value.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. Salman, 384 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…earnest money binder or, as indicated in count II, money damages for breach of contract in an amount equal to the difference between the agreed purchase price and the actual value of the property at the time of the breach. Redmond v. Prosper, Inc., 364 So. 2d 812 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The buyer responded by filing an answer containing a general denial of all allegations in the complaint and, as to Count I, interposed the affirmative defenses of: (a) satisfaction; (b) compromise and settlement; and (c) laches, t…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)…N. Assocs., 452 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (seller must show ability to perform all conditions precedent to recover damages) (citing Hosp. Mortg. Grp. v. First Prudential Dev. Corp., 411 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1982)). 5. Redmond v. Prosper, Inc., 364 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (proper measure of damages for breach of real estate contract is “the excess of the contract sales price over the market value as of the time of the breach, less the amount previously paid”). 6. Popwell v. Abel, 226 So. 2d 4…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948 (Fla. 1948)
- Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1972)
- Burch v. Burch, 352 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)