GERARD PORRY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN LUDWIG, 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.
The court held that a contract for the sale of real property, even if not sufficiently certain for specific performance, may be sufficient to support a claim for damages under the Statute of Frauds.
Porry contracted to buy a condominium unit from Ludwig, but Ludwig subsequently sold it to a third party. Porry sued for breach of contract, but the t…
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 Statute Of Frauds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gerard Porry appeals from an order of final summary judgment in an action for damages. For the following reason, we reverse and remand.
In December of 1985, Ludwig contracted to sell condominium warehouse unit 5 at the Palmetto Palms Park Condominium to Porry. Subsequently, Ludwig sold unit 5 to a third party.
Porry filed this breach of contract action seeking damages against Ludwig. Ludwig moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the “contract” relied on by Porry violated the Statute of Frauds for the sale of real property. § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1985). The trial court granted the motion and, in doing so, erred.
In Fox v. Sails at Laguna Club Dev. Corp., 403 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the parties entered into an agreement substantially similar in substance to the one relied on by Porry in this case. The appel-lee in Fox moved for summary judgment alleging that the agreements in question did not satisfy the statute of frauds. The trial court granted the motion. In ruling that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that there was not a valid contract for which damages could be recovered, this court stated: “A lesser degree of certainty is required to afford relief for damages than is necessary to decree specific performance.” Id. at 458 (citations omitted).
Fox controls the result here. Accordingly, the order of summary judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for trial on Porry’s damage claims for breach of contract.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arand Constr. Co. v. Duford Dyer, 592 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…xample, two of three physicians testified consistent with a finding of causation. In Morton Plant Hospital, much of the medical testimony established causation. The case most supportive of claimant’s position is Fusco v. P & S Construction Company, 564 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Fusco, the claimant suffered a series of mishaps, and it was unclear whether his back injury resulted from his latest industrial accident. The only medical testimony established that the latest accident “could have” produced…
-
Mauricio Aranzazu Alzate v. Lazaro, 992 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…orp., 348 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Langlois v. Oriole Land & Dev. Corp., 283 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lasseter v. Dauer, 211 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)); see also Schofield v. Talley, 79 Fla. 406, 84 So. 193 (1920); Porry v. Ludwig, 564 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); 48 Fla. Jur.2d Specific Performance § 34, at 159 (2007). The contract involved in this case is comparable to that involved in the Fox case. See 403 So. 2d at 458-59 n. 1. [*427] Based on the cited cases, we reverse the order inso…
Authorities Cited
- Emilio FOX and Frances Fox v. The Sails AT Laguna Club Dev. Corp., 403 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)