TOWN REALTY OF WEST FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KRIS DEMARAIS AND KATHLEEN DEMARAIS, APPELLEES
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.
Town Realty sold a home site to the Demaraises under a contract with a condition that both parties must execute and deliver signed copies by July 3, 2006, or the contract would be void. The seller failed to deliver until after the deadline, but the buyers accepted the late delivery, made design changes, attended a pre-construction meeting, and inquired about payment before later claiming the contract was void. The court held that the buyers waived the condition through their conduct and reversed summary judgment in favor of the buyers.
The buyers waived the condition requiring timely delivery of a signed copy. Even though the contract explicitly stated it would be 'void' if the condition was not satisfied, such a 'void' clause can be waived, and the buyers' conduct—accepting the late delivery, making design changes, attending a pre-construction meeting, and inquiring about payment—constituted waiver of the deadline requirement.
[1] A contractual condition requiring delivery of a signed agreement by a specific date can be waived by the conduct of the parties.
[2] A party's subsequent actions that are inconsistent with the voiding of a contract, such as making design changes and attending pre-construction meetings, can constitute a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Buyers place great emphasis on the fact that the contract provided that it would be 'void' if each party had not received a signed contract by the deadline, but that argument is without merit. Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246, 47 So. 947 (1908) (a clause declaring a contract void if a certain event occurs can be waived).”
Establishes that a contractual condition stated to make the contract 'void' is nonetheless subject to waiver by the parties' conduct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe buyers signed a residential real estate construction contract on June 22, 2006, for a home site where the seller would construct a home. The contr…
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 Action For Return Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the buyers under a residential real estate contract because a condition was not satisfied. We conclude the condition was waived and reverse.
The contract was for the purchase of a home site on which the seller was to construct a home, and the buyers signed the contract on June 22, 2006. The condition is:
TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE; EFFECTIVE DATE: If this Agreement is not executed by both parties and a copy thereof delivered to each party on or before 7/03/06 this Agreement shall be null and void.
Although both parties had signed the contract by June 23, the seller did not deliver to the buyers a copy of the signed contract until several days after the July 3rd deadline. The buyers, however, accepted the certified mail delivery of the contract on July 11th, and on that same day made design changes to the home which were incorporated as an addendum to the contract and signed on July 14th. Eight days after that the buyers attended a pre-construction meeting and signed a document acknowledging that the seller was authorized to start construction based on the plan and options as agreed at that time, along with another addendum providing for upgraded lighting fixtures. On August 23rd, the buyers sent an e-mail asking when their next payment was due and where they should send the check.
It was not until September 15, 2006, that counsel for the buyers sent a letter to seller asserting that the contract was void because the buyers had not received a signed copy prior to July 3, 2006, and demanded a return of the deposit. The seller refused to return the deposit and the buyers filed this lawsuit.
Both sides moved for summary judgment and the trial court concluded that because the contract provided that it was void if a signed copy was not delivered to each party on or before July 3rd, the buyers were entitled to their deposit. Sellers argue that the buyers waived the condition.
In Bush v. Ayer, 728 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), this court enforced a contract for the purchase of real estate, where the buyer’s manner of acceptance was not the one specified by the seller, because we concluded that the sellers had waived the requirement by failing to protest until the time for closing. See also Am. Somax Ventures v. Touma, 547 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (by failing to object, buyers waived the contractual requirement of written notice of the extension of the closing date).
Buyers place great emphasis on the fact that the contract provided that it would be “void” if each party had not received a signed contract by the deadline, but that argument is without merit. Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246, 47 So. 947 (1908) (a clause declaring a contract void if a certain event occurs can be waived).
We reverse the summary judgment and remand for entry of a summary judgment in favor of the seller. FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1908)
- Am. Somax Ventures v. Touma, 547 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Bush v. Ayer, 728 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)