MICHAEL DONALD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)
  …being in such cases [where the buyer breaches the contract] the difference between the agreed purchase price and the actual value of the property at the time of the breach of the contract of purchase, less the amount paid.”). 2. Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value of the property on the date of the breach. All additional damages must be all…
• DePRINCE v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 163 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
  …at product and the price of the product as specified in the repudiated contract. § 672.713, Fla. Stat. (2013); A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); U.C.C. § 2-713 (2002); see also Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (applying the same rule to real estate). This damage calculation serves to vindicate the buyer’s expectation interest by placing him in the same position in which he would have been had the contract been executed as agreed.…
• Wiborg v. Eisenberg, 671 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
  …iately ordered. We affirm all other issues raised by Wiborg. On cross-appeal, the Eisenbergs contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant damages incident to specific performance. The trial judge, basing his finding on Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), found that the Eisenbergs were not entitled to special damages which had not been pled with specificity as such damages were not contemplated by the parties nor a natural or proximate result of any alleged breach. The trial cour…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)