BENNETT S. COHN AND WESTON-FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
HOWARD E. LYNCH AND JANE LYNCH, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Reversed. We believe the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of the appellants as to their alleged breach of contract by failing to appear at a closing allegedly scheduled by the appellees’ lender. While it is apparent that the appellants themselves were responsible for much of the confusion over when the transaction would be ready to close, there is no evidence that their actions constituted a breach of the contract or a refusal to com-píete the transaction. It is apparent from the record that the appellants were not legally obligated under the contract of purchase to close at the time allegedly demanded by the lender. Cf. Henry v. Ecker, 415 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983).
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Treasure, 984 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…tson v. Albertson, 566 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). The agreement lacks any provision dealing with the unresolved issue as to what would happen if the employer would not permit a QDRO carrying out the parties’ intention. Cf Raticoff v. Raticoff, 507 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (concluding parties’ agreement became ambiguous by subsequent discovery of additional pension benefits and trial court erred in awarding wife property rights which were not contemplated by the parties at the time of the stipulate…
-
McHUGH v. McHUGH, 702 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…sset which increased in value. And had the plan suffered a loss, we do not think that the husband would offer to make up the difference between its loss in value and the amount of its value from the date of the final judgment. Raticoff v. Raticoff, 507 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), is distinguishable. In that case, the parties agreed to a distribution of benefits from the husband’s pension plan, only to discover after making the agreement that there were additional benefits which could be obtained. Thus, t…
-
Darby Elizabeth Suess v. Suess, 289 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…. 4th DCA 2008) ("A trial court should consider the "circumstances in which the parties found themselves at the time the contract was entered into.") (quoting Miller v. Kase, 789 So. 2d 1095, 1099 (Fla. 4th - 13 - DCA 2001))); Raticoff v. Raticoff, 507 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding trial court erred in considering facts discovered after the parties entered property settlement agreement in awarding former wife certain property rights never contemplated by the parties at the time of the settleme…
Authorities Cited
- Henry v. Ecker, 415 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)