EQUITRAC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

KENNY, NACHWALTER & SEYMOUR, P.A., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Mailloux v. Briella Townhomes, LLC, 3 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
  …ng that impossibility of performance can provide a defense to nonperformance of a contract where facts making performance impossible were not available to promisor prior to execution of contract); Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, P.A., 493 So. 2d 548, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (noting that doctrine of frustration of purpose can render a contract unenforceable). Nonetheless, the Maillouxes rely on Samara Development Corp. v. Marlow, 556 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1990), for the proposition that a “contract mu…
• 1700 Rinehart, LLC v. Advance Am., 51 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
  …y broad interpretations of frustration doctrine, “the defense is not available concerning difficulties which could reasonably have been foreseen by the promisor at the creation of the contract.”); Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, P.A., 493 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“It appears without material dispute that the purpose for which the subject contract was formed became entirely frustrated under the circumstances of this case due to no fault of either party.”); Valencia Ctr., Inc. v. Publix Sup…
• Hopfenspirger v. West, 949 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
  …77.52 (2006). The doctrine is not limited to strict impossibility, but includes “impracticability” due to unreasonable expense. Id. Florida and Minnesota both acknowledge and apply this doctrine. Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, P.A., 493 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); City of Savage v. Formanek, 459 N.W. 2d 173 (Minn.Ct.App.1990). In this case, it would have been a futile act for Hopfenspirger to commence foreclosure proceedings on the Louisiana property. The futility of such a course of actio…

Authorities Cited

• Crown ICE Mach. Leasing Co. v. SAM Senter Farms, Inc., 174 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
• Borden v. Sakolsky, 180 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1965)
• Crown Ice Mach. Leasing Co. v. Sam Senter Farms, Inc., 180 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1965)