G. EDWIN BRUCE III AND THAYER CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND KENNETH MAMULA, 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.
A real estate broker appealed the dismissal of claims against a prospective purchaser for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference after the purchaser failed to complete a property transaction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a prospective purchaser has no legal obligation to complete a purchase and therefore cannot be liable for failing to do so.
A prospective purchaser of property is not liable to a broker for showing interest and then failing to make the purchase. Because the purchaser had no obligation to complete the purchase, there can be no actionable fraud, misrepresentation, or tortious interference with a contractual relationship.
[1] A prospective purchaser is not liable to a real estate broker for a commission absent an agreement to the contrary or a written contract.
[2] A prospective purchaser is not liable to a broker for showing interest in property and then failing to complete the purchase.
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 intelligence“A prospective purchaser of property is not liable to a broker for showing an interest in property and then failing to make the purchase. Because the purchaser was not obligated, there can be no fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with a contractual relationship.”
States the central legal principle that a prospective purchaser has no duty to complete a transaction and therefore cannot be held liable for failing to do so
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate broker listed an apartment building for sale. The broker contacted the defendant corporation regarding the listing, and the corporation …
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 Fraud And Deceit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals the final order dismissing appellants’ amended complaint with prejudice.
The owner of an apartment building listed it with the plaintiff, a real estate broker, to procure a purchaser, ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. The broker contacted the defendant with regard to the listing. It is alleged that the corporation represented that its agent had the authority to act on behalf of the corporation and that the corporation was a ready, willing, and able purchaser;. When the sale was not consummated, the broker brought suit against the seller. After termination of that action on the pleadings, this action was brought against the prospective purchaser on the following theories: (1) fraud and deceit; (2) negligent misrepresentation in stating that the agent had authority to bind the corporation; and (3) tortious interference. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the amended complaint.
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary or written contract, the purchaser is not responsible for a brokerage commission. Tutko v. Banks, 167 So. 2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).
A prospective purchaser of property is not liable to a broker for showing an interest in property and then failing to make the purchase. Because the purchaser was not obligated, there can be no fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with a contractual relationship.
An unfulfilled promise to perform something in the future is not actionable. Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). For a complaint to state a cause of action for misrepresentation, there must be a right to rely. Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1978). Clearly, one is not justified in relying upon some action which the other party is not required to perform. There can be no interference with a contractual relationship where the action complained of is undertaken to safeguard or promote one’s financial or economic interest. Ethyl Corporation v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The prospective purchasers, acting in their own best interest, had the right not to consummate the transaction.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…with. A.R.E.E.A., Inc. v. Goldstein, 411 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Likewise, there can be no claim where the action complained of is undertaken to safeguard or promote one’s financial or economic interest. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d at 1225. Here, A-B, acting in its own best interest, had the right not to approve the proposed transfer. Accordingly, its actions taken to safeguard its economic interests are non-actionable. Eth…
-
Century 21 Admiral's Port, Inc. v. Walker, 471 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ing negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. We affirm on a holding that since the time for performance was left subject to future agreement, the appellants had no right to rely on the representation made. Cf. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (real estate broker had no right to rely on prospective purchaser’s statement that it was ready, willing and able to buy); Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 595 P. 2d 172 (1979) (promise too indefinite to be relied upon); Grosse…
-
McINTOSH v. Harbour Club Villas Condo. Ass'n, 468 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…. 2d at 658. Actions taken to safeguard or promote one’s own financial or contractual interests are held to be privileged and entirely non-actionable. Ethyl Corp., 386 So. 2d at 1225 and authority cited. See also Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wackenhut Corp., 389 So. 2d at 658. In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that Quayside tortiously interfered with the contractual agreement to oppose the Quayside project entered between themselves and the Villas “by induc…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Tutko v. Clyde M. Banks, 167 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)