GEORGE BLOSSER, APPELLANT,
v.
AADCO ENTERPRISES, INC., ETC., 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.
A party cannot selectively enforce provisions of a contract that it successfully defended against as never becoming effective due to the non-performance of a condition precedent.
A party cannot enforce a contractual attorney's fees provision when the underlying contract never became effective due to the non-performance of a condition precedent by the other party.
[1] A party cannot selectively enforce provisions of a contract by relying on a condition precedent to defeat liability while simultaneously enforcing other provisions of the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
The court's closing statement emphasizing the principle of reciprocal treatment in contract enforcement.
A contract between the parties required appellee to install distribution cable by November 1, 1986, as a condition precedent to the contract becoming …
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 Attorney'S Fees Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A contract between the parties provided that “as a condition precedent to this Contract becoming effective and enforceable,” appellee was to install distribution cable prior to November 1, 1986. The contract further provided that if appellee failed to install the cable prior to that date, “then this Contract shall be null and void and neither party shall have any further liability hereunder.”
When appellee sued appellant for breach of this contract, appellant successfully defended on the basis that appellee never performed the condition precedent to the legal efficacy of the contract and that the contract never became “effective and enforceable.” However, appellant then sought contractual attorney’s fees based on a provision of the same contract and appeals from the trial court’s denial of such attorney’s fees. We affirm.
If appellee could not recover damages from appellant for breach of this “contract” because it was not “effective and enforceable” or was “null and void”, then likewise, and for the same reason, appellant cannot recover attorney’s fees from appellee by enforcing one provision in the same “contract.” 1
AFFIRMED.
COBB, COWART and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ecting the gambling debt from Arviv. Because the statute declares any such agreement “void and of no effect,” the statute invalidates the nonseverable provision for attorney’s fees. See § 849.26, Fla.Stat. (1993); Blosser v. AADCO Enterprises, Inc., 526 So. 2d 126, 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); see also Schaal v. Race, 135 So. 2d 252, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). The attorney’s fee award is therefore reversed. [*181] hi Arviv has cross-appealed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees under subsection 57.105(1), Fl…
-
Surgical P'rs, LLC v. Michael Choi, D.O., 100 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…The doctor simply cannot avoid a liquidated damages provision by claiming the agreement never came into effect, or was unenforceable, and at the same time be entitled to attorney’s fees under the same agreement.1 See Blosser v. AADCO Enters., Inc., 526 So. 2d 126, 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (affirming the denial of contractual attorney’s fees where the defendant prevailed in a breach of contract action by asserting that plaintiff never performed the condition precedent to the contract). For this reason, we reve…
-
Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)