PROVECASA, A GUATEMALAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GEMINI ASSOCIATED CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FRANCISCO GAITAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
The judgment entered for the defendant Francisco Gaitan in this suit brought by the plaintiff, Provecasa, to collect on a dishonored check is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Provecasa. Where, as here, the instrument, bearing the name Gemini Associated Corporation as the entity represented by Gaitan, was signed by Gaitan with no indication thereon that he signed in a representative capacity, and it was not shown or, indeed, even contended that Provecasa and Gaitan established that Gaitan would nevertheless be exempt from personal liability, Gaitan, as well as his principal, is liable to Provecasa. Medley Harwoods, Inc. v. Novy, 346 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). See MJZ Corp. v. Gulfstream First Bank & Trust, N.A., 420 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); § 673.403, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newport Seafood, Inc. v. Neptune Trading Corp., 555 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…principal, Neptune Trading, may both be held responsible to Newport Seafood, this court has recognized that a corporate principal and its representative may both be held liable on a worthless check claim. Provecasa v. Gemini Associated Corporation, 532 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We emphasize, however, that in order for a representative to be held liable, his personal obligation under the checks must be established. Section 673.403(2), Florida Statutes (1987), of the Uniform Commercial Code, and cases in…
-
BBD Elec. Distribs., Inc. v. Magid, 673 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…because there is no evidence that the parties agreed Magid would not be personally liable. See Hind-Marsh v. Puglia, 665 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Serna v. Milanese, Inc., 643 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Provecasa v. Gemini Associated Corp., 532 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Second, there are sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process requirements. Magid delivered 140 checks to BBD in Miami over nearly a six-year period for $3,500,000 worth of merchandise which was delivered in Florida. Beca…
-
Solomon v. Betras Plastics, Inc., 550 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…rate existence. I would reverse. . Under this section, a principal is not liable unless an instrument names the principal and clearly shows that the signature is made on the principal’s behalf. See, e.g., Provecasa v. Gemini Associated Corporation, 532 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Medley Harwoods, Inc. v. Novy, 346 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); MJZ Corporation v. Gulfstream First Bank and Trust, N.A., 420 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). . “Mere instrumentality” theories of piercing the veil deal with pa…
Authorities Cited
- MJZ Corp. & Michael J. Zappone v. Gulfstream First Bank & Tr., 420 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Medley Harwoods, Inc. v. Novy, 346 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)