JAMES J. JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE DUBREUIL, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-06-24
Nos. 79-1636, 79-1637
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
385 So. 2d 708 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review and the order denying Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 relief under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) there was competent substantial evidence in this record to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had no right to an accounting based on the June 29, 1971 agreement between the parties [plaintiff’s exhibit no. 2], as prayed for in the amended complaint, because (a) such agreement was unenforceable as it was unsupported by good and valuable consideration, and (b) the consideration recited in such agreement was invalid as it was based on a transfer of stock which the plaintiff was already obligated to make by virtue of a valid July 7, 1966 option agreement be tween the parties; and (2) no fraud sufficient to vacate the final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(3) has been shown on this record. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); F.

L. Stitt & Co. v. Powell, 94 Fla. 550, 114 So. 375 (1927); Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cuna Mutual Insurance Society v. Adamides, 334 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Delallo v. Food Palace, Inc., 330 So. 2d 835, 836-837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Berdoll v. Sobik's Franchises, Inc., 681 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
    …nd received them, it was Sobik’s Sandwich Shops’ responsibility to service the franchise agreements. Since Sobik’s Sandwich Shops had the responsibility to service the agreements, servicing the agreements is not consideration. See James v. DuBreuil, 385 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (consideration recited in agreement was invalid as it was based on a transfer of stock which the plaintiff was already obligated to make by virtue of another agreement between the parties). The franchise agreements are worth at l…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw