BRAMAN DODGE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID B. SMITH AND LUZ ELVIRA SMITH, 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.
In this rescission case, the trial court granted plaintiffs' request to rescind an automobile purchase contract based on mutual mistake, awarding them over $8,000 in restitution while requiring them to return the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the rescission but reversed the judgment as inequitable, finding the trial court failed to adjust the equities between the parties.
While rescission was proper where parties labor under a mutual mistake material to the transaction, the trial court failed to balance the equities between the parties. The judgment was reversed in part to allow adjustment of equities, as the court must restore parties to the status quo or, where impossible, balance the equities between them.
[1] Rescission of a contract is an appropriate remedy when a material mutual mistake, without deliberate fault, leads to the contract terms not reflecting the parties' actual…
[2] When rescinding a contract, a court should endeavor to restore the parties to their original positions (status quo).
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rescission of a contract is an adequate remedy where the parties to the contract labor under a mutual mistake which is material to the transaction.”
Establishes the legal standard for rescission based on mutual mistake
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid and Luz Smith purchased a 1983 automobile from Braman Dodge, Inc., trading in a 1979 vehicle and providing a down payment. The parties operated …
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 Cancellation Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Plaintiffs, David and Luz Smith, brought a suit against defendant, Braman Dodge, Inc., seeking cancellation and rescission of a contract and security agreement for the purchase of a 1983 automobile and damages for fraud allegedly perpetrated on the plaintiffs in connection with the sales transaction.
The jury, using a special interrogatory verdict, rejected the fraud count, finding instead that due to mutual mistake, without deliberate fault on the part of either party, the terms and conditions of the contract and security agreement did not accurately reflect the agreement reached by the parties. The trial judge, relying on the jury’s findings, entered a final judgment for plaintiffs, rescinding the contract and awarding plaintiffs $8,136.55, which included $4,400.45 for the down payment plaintiffs gave defendant and $1,975.00 for the value of the 1979 trade-in vehicle, plus $1,761.10 for pre-judgment interest. The judgment also required plaintiffs to return the 1983 automobile to defendant.
Defendant appealed the adverse judgment, contending, inter alia, that if the plaintiffs were entitled to rescission, the trial court should have allowed defendant the opportunity to present evidence to adjust the equities between the parties.
Rescission of a contract is an adequate remedy where the parties to the contract labor under a mutual mistake which is material to the transaction. Mar-Char Enter., Inc. v. Charlie’s The Lakes Restaurant, Inc., 451 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1984); Crown Ice Machine Leasing Co. v. Sam Senter Farms, Inc., 174 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 180 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1965); 9 Fla.Jur.2d Cancellation Reformation and Rescission § 29 (1979).
In granting rescission, the court should attempt to restore the parties to the status quo. Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); O’Donnell v. Novak, 183 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Where restoration to the status quo is impossible, however, a court may still grant rescission, provided the equities between the parties can be balanced. Mar-Char Enter., Inc., 451 So. 2d at 931, n. 1; Janeczek v. Embry, 330 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); O’Donnell, 183 So. 2d at 886.
The court, in the instant case, correctly rescinded the contract and security agreement, but failed to fashion a remedy which would do equity to both parties and afford complete relief. An examination of the judgment clearly demonstrates that the judgment favored plaintiffs; plaintiffs received compensation in excess of $8,000.00 in contrast to defendant, who only obtained the return of the 1983 vehicle. The judgment failed to compensate defendant for any financial damages sustained as a result of the contract or for the depreciation of the vehicle.
Furthermore, the judgment failed to deduct any benefits plaintiffs re ceived from use of the vehicle.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed in part, and the cause remanded with instructions to adjust the equities between the parties.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. S.G. Fitzsimmons, IV, 673 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…me condition as when he took possession. Further, while we recognize that, where restoration to the status quo is impossible, a court may still grant rescission provided the equities between the parties can be balanced, Braman Dodge, Inc. v. Smith, 515 So. 2d 1053,1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), Turner failed to present evidence on which the trial court could have balanced the equities. Below, despite several statements from the trial judge that she would require evidence of the value of the motel to grant rescissio…
-
Bass v. Farish, 616 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986). In this situation, the defrauded person is excused from restoration if the inability to restore is caused by the wrongdoer’s conduct. Id. at 48. In their brief, the appellants rely on Braman Dodge, Inc. v. Smith, 515 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA1987), in which the third district held that an agreement can be rescinded based upon mutual mistake even if the pre-agreement status quo cannot be restored as long as the equities between the parties can be balanced. While that outcome…
-
Henson v. James M. Barker Co., Inc., 555 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…In the event restoration to the status quo is impossible, rescission may be granted if the court can balance the equities and fashion an appropriate remedy that would do equity to both parties and afford complete relief. Braman Dodge, Inc. v. Smith, 515 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We conclude that the Hensons are entitled to present evidence in support of the allegations of their amended complaint. They allege that Barker intentionally did not disclose latent defects in the work to induce the Hensons to p…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- 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)
- Janeczek v. Embry, 330 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- O'Donnell v. Novak, 183 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Mar-Char Enters., Inc. v. Charlie's THE Lakes Rest., Inc., 451 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)