SECURITIES HOLDING COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

FLORIDA & SOUTHERN DREDGING COMPANY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Bornstein v. Somerson, 341 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
  …r performance, open price, remedies and the like.” Florida courts, both prior to and after the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code, have recognized these principles with respect to “open terms.” See, e. g. Roe v. Winter Haven Co., 104 Fla. 317, 140 So. 463 (1932); Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 302 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1974). In Roe, supra, involving an agreement for the sale of fruit, it was held that mere inability to ascertain the quantity and price of the fruit at…
• Townsend Fruit Co., Inc. v. Mayo, 98 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
  …*363] ranted statement by way of dictum in a mere concurring opinion by a single judge can later become the predicate of erroneous decision: Bowers v. Dr. P. Phillips Co., 1930, 100 Fla. 695, 129 So. 850; Roe v. Winter Haven Co., 1932, 104 Fla. 317, 140 So. 463; Metcalf v. R. D. Keene & Co., 1935, 122 Fla. 27, 164 So. 704 (The dictum occurred in the concurring opinion of Ellis, P. J.); Gregg Maxcy Inc., v. Bateman, 1937, 126 Fla. 747, 171 So. 811 (The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brown is unanswerable…
• Winter Haven Fruit Sales Corp. v. C. L. Bundy & Sons, Inc., 128 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1937)
  …the parties and followed the proper rule of law applicable to the rulings he was required to make in the course of the trial concerning it. The case as made is controlled/by Sv.hat was said by us in the case of Roe v. Winter Haven Co., 104 Fla. 317, 140 Sou. Rep. 463, and upon the basis of that decision we are impelled, to affirm the judgment as entered. In so deciding we have not overlooked the case of Metcalf v. R. D. Keen & Co., 122 Fla. 27, 164 Sou. Rep. 704, which we consider to be clearly distinguishable o…