NATHANIEL BROWN, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Statsick, 231 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
  …aking of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs— not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.” (quoting Hanson v. Maxfield, 23 So. 3d 736, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))); see also Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985) (same). In the final analysis, there is no question that the parties agreed to the same thing and that they received what they agreed to. The question o…
• Suarez Trucking Fl Corp. v. Souders, 350 So. 3d 38 (Fla. 2022)
• Lunas v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto RICO, 100 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
  …‘The making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs — not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.’” Hanson v. Maxfield, 23 So. 3d 736, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Robbie, 469 So. 2d at 1385). [*242] The insurer advances two theories that explain how, it contends, an enforceable contract came into being. The record demonstrates that neither theory gave rise to an enforceable c…