H. B. GASKINS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RELLA BYRD, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to deny specific performance of a real estate contract, holding that such enforcement is a matter of judicial discretion and should not be granted when the contract is inequitable due to unequal bargaining power and inadequate consideration.
No, courts should not specifically enforce contracts for the sale of real estate if there is clear evidence of inequality between the contracting parties, such as inexperience of one party versus superior knowledge of the other, resulting in a contract with manifestly inadequate consideration that would be inequitable to enforce.
“Applications for the enforcement of specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor.”
Establishes that specific performance is not an absolute right but a matter of judicial discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. The trial court dismissed their bill of complaint, refusing to enfor…
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 Specific Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The appellants brought suit to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. The court dismissed the bill of complaint.
Applications for the enforcement of specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor. Such discretion is controlled by the provisions and principles of law and equity applicable to the particular facts and circumstances; and unless it clearly appears that the chancellor has erred in his decree in refusing a specific performance, it will not be disturbed on appeal.
Contracts for the sale of real estate will not be specifically enforced where the particular facts and circumstances clearly show unequality of the contracting parties-by reason of the inexperience and lack of information of one party with reference to the subject-matter as com pared with the superior business qualities and information of the other party, resulting in a contract based on manifestly inadequate consideration the enforcement of which would be inequitable and unjust.
There is ample evidence to sustain the action of the chancellor, in refusing specific performance of the contract, and the decree is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and-Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Morgan Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110 (Fla. 1927)…urt of equity to decree specific performance of it, so the bill therefore makes no case. Unless it clearly appears that the Chancellor has erred in his decree in refusing specific performance it will not be disturbed on appeal. See Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 South. Rep. 824; Murphy v. Hohne, 73 Fla. 803, 74 South. Rep. 973. The remedy is granted of grace and rests in discretion. See Knox v. Spratt, 23 Fla. 64, 6 South. Rep. 924; Asia v. Hiser, 38 Fla. 71, 20 South. Rep. 796; Nobles v. L’Engle, [*11…
-
DeHuy v. Osborne, 96 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1928)…512; 62 So. R. 926; Realty Securities Corp. v. Johnson, supra. Certainly, it cannot be said that the chancellor was clearly in error in denying such relief under the circumstances. See Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 110, 111 So. R. 386; Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 So. R. 824; Murphy v. Hohne, 73 Fla. 803, 74 So. R. 973. For the reasons already stated, the decree dismissing the purchaser’s bill does not permit the vendor-defendants to take advantage of their own default. Nor does it deny the purchaser rel…
-
The R. E. L. McCaskill Co. v. Dekle, 88 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1924)…well established doctrines of equitable jurisprudence. Where to do so would be harsh, inequitable, and against good conscience, specific performance will not be decreed. Murphy v. Hohne, 73 Fla. 803, 74 South. Rep. 973; Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 South. Rep. 824; Rose v. Henderson, 63 Fla. 564, 59 South. Rep. 138; Pensacola Gas Co. v. Pro. Munic. of Pensacola, 33 Fla. 322, 14 South. Rep. 826; Chaplin v. Korber Realty (N. M.), 224 Pac. Rep. 396; Sommerville v. Coppage, 101 Md. 519, 61 Atl. Rep. 318. The amo…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence