CAS-KAY ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SNAPPER CREEK TRADING CENTER, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of rescission action and foreclosure summary judgment, holding that an integration clause does not bar fraud-based rescission claims and that a party need not investigate obvious falsities to rely on misrepresentations.
An integration clause in a real estate contract does not preclude rescission based on fraud in the procurement of the contract, and a party's failure to investigate does not defeat reliance on misrepresentations unless the party knew or should have known they were false.
[1] An integration clause stating that no prior agreements or representations shall be binding does not preclude rescission of a real estate contract based on fraud in its pr…
[2] A party's failure to investigate alleged misrepresentations does not defeat reliance on those misrepresentations unless the party knew or obviously should have known they…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the "integration" clause of the contract for sale stating that "no prior or present agreements or representations shall be binding upon any of the parties hereto unless incorporated in this contract" does not make the contract incontestable where...the appellant based its action to rescind...on the grounds that the contract was procured by fraud”
Court explaining that integration clauses do not bar fraud-based rescission claims
Cas-Kay Enterprises purchased real property from Snapper Creek Trading Center and gave a purchase money mortgage to secure the balance of the purchase…
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 Reliance On Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order dismissing the appellant’s action to rescind its purchase of real property from the appellee and the summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee in its action to foreclose the purchase money mortgage given by the appellant to secure the balance of the purchase price of such sale of real property upon a holding that (1) the “integration” clause of the contract for sale stating that “no prior or present agreements or representations shall be binding upon any of the parties hereto unless incorporated in this contract” does not make the contract incontestable where, as here, the appellant based its action to rescind and its affirmative defense to the foreclosure action on the grounds that the contract was procured by fraud, compare Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454, 4 So. 2d 689 (1941) (action to rescind based on fraud in procurement survives integration clause), with Cassara v. Bowman, 136 Fla. 302, 186 So. 514 (1939) (action to rescind not based on fraud in procurement does not survive integration clause); and (2) since it does not appear from the pleadings or otherwise that the appellant knew that the alleged misrepresentations were false, or that they were obviously false, the mere fact that their falsity could have been ascertained through investigation did not prevent the appellant from relying on such alleged misrepresentations, Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla.1980); Gold v. Wolkowitz, 430 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); North Miami General Hospital v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…tly induced a person to enter into the agreement. Ortiz v. Orchid Springs Dev. Corp., 504 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Nobles v. Citizens Mortgage Corp., 479 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Cas-Kay Enters., Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Ctr., Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). And, when fraudulent misrepresentations in the formation of the contract are alleged, as is the case here, the economic loss rule does not bar recovery. HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A, 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.1996);…
-
Nobles v. Citizens Mortg. Corp., 479 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…defendant to plaintiff. However, oral agreements or representations may be introduced into evidence to prove that a contract was procured by fraud notwithstanding such a merger clause. Cas-Kay Enterprises, Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Center, Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Pena v. Tampa Federal Savings & Loan Association, 363 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, at this stage of the litigation it cannot be concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defenda…
-
Billington v. Ginn-La Pine Island, Ltd., LLLP, 192 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…involved a merger clause but did not concern non-reliance or waiver of misrepresentation clauses. The Third District Court of Appeal has followed both cases with conflicting results. Compare Cas-Kay Enters., Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Ctr., Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (citing Oceanic Villas for proposition that “integration clause” does not negate fraud claim), with Weiss v. Cherry, 477 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citing Cassara for proposition that fi-aud claim does not “survive” i…
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
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1980)
- Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1941)
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Cassara v. Bowman, 136 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1939)
- Mantilla v. Fabian, 284 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Gold v. Wolkowitz, 430 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)