MERLOT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTO SHAUL SHALEV, 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 affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Merlot's action for the return of deposit money.
Merlot Communications, Inc. sought to acquire World Pass Communications Company from Alberto Shaul Shalev, but the deal fell through when Merlot could…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Merlot Communications, Inc. [Merlot] seeks to reverse a judgment which denies Merlot’s action for the return of deposit money held by Alberto Shaul Shalev. We affirm.
Merlot’s plans to acquire World Pass Communications Company from Shalev fell through when Merlot was unable to close on the agreed date. Merlot demanded the return of its deposit money, which demand Shalev rejected. Merlot then filed this action, which was referred to a general master who, after hearing the testimony and arguments, filed a final report recommending that judgment be entered in favor of Shalev, and against Merlot. After overruling Merlot’s exceptions to the report, the trial judge approved the report and entered the judgment appealed by Merlot.
We have reviewed de novo the contract (as amended) and agree with the interpretations placed thereon by the trial court, as set out in the general master’s thorough report.1 We also find that the findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence. As a consequence the judgment must be affirmed.2
Affirmed.
. The interpretation of a contract is a question of law, reviewable de novo by an appellate court, which is not restricted from reaching a construction contrary to that of the trial court. See Florida Dept. of Revenue v. McClung, 760 So. 2d 244, 246 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We do not, however, reach a contrary construction.
. We are not free to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment thereon for that of the trial court. See Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm'rs., 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla.2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. Dethlefs, 959 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…with Dethlefs. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the order granting summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. American Engineering & Development Corp. v. Sanchez, 932 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Merlot Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shalev, 840 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The parties agree that the Trust provision is unambiguous and that its effect may be determined as a matter of law.2 See Angell v. Don Jones Ins. Agency, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(“Where the determinatio…
-
Charbonier Food Servs., LLC v. 121 Alhambra Tower, LLC, 206 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…e language of paragraph fifty-one is plain and unambiguous, their proposed' constructions of that language are diametrically opposed. We review a trial court’s interpretation of a contract under a de novo standard. Merlot Commc’ns., Inc. v. Shalev, 840 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Where a contract is unambiguous, it shall be enforced according to its plain lan guage. Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla.2015); Washington Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla.2013). In such a situation…
-
D & J Indus., Inc. v. KEY W. Beach Club Condo. Ass'n NOS. 1 & 2, Inc., 847 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. D & J Industries, Inc. appeals an adverse final judgment after a bench trial. We conclude that the judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence. Merlot Communications, Inc. v. Shalev, 840 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mazzella v. Greene, 802 So. 2d 458, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Roberts Roofing Co. v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 167, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The damage award is entirely appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001)
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. McCLUNG, 760 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)