PAUL GOODWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
BENJAMIN SHIRE AND ROSE SHIRE, APPELLEES
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 the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their deposit because they paid for something they did not receive.
Plaintiffs sued to recover their deposit on a contract to purchase a house to be built by the defendant. There was a misunderstanding regarding repres…
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 Action To Recover Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from a summary final judgment in an action by the plaintiffs to recover plaintiffs’ deposit upon a contract to purchase a residence to be built by defendant. The court had before it the contract and the correspondence between the parties. No genuine issue as to any material fact is shown to exist. Therefore, .the only question is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover under the law.
It affirmatively appears from the correspondence between the parties that there was considerable misunderstanding as to the representations made by the defendant at the time the contract was made. Several attempts to resolve the .matter were made but none were carried out. Thereupon the defendant proposed to complete the house and return the deposit after he sold the property. Although this specific offer was not expressly accepted, no other solution was worked out. The defendant admits that he subsequently sold the property but alleges loss of profit because the house was tailored for plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs paid for something that they did not get. The judgment is affirmed under authority of the rule stated in Moss v. Condict, 154 Fla. 153, 16 So.2d 921; cf. Calhoun v. Corbisello, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 171. See Moore v. Boyd, Fla. 1952, 62 So.2d 427.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Nat'l Bank v. First Int'l Realty Inv. Corp., 364 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…onal guarantee to the Bank which subsequently removed his name from the list of personal guarantors. There being no question that Porch was entitled to prevail under the undisputed facts, the summary judgment is affirmed. See e. g. Goodwin v. Shire, 105 So. 2d 178 (Fla.3d DCA 1958). Affirmed.…
-
Lytell v. McGAHEY Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 180 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…conscience, should pay to the appellant. See Cullen v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co., 63 Fla. 122, 58 So. 182 (1912); Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848, 122 So. 513 (1929); Calhoun v. Corbisello, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 171; and Goodwin v. Shire, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 178. Even though the forms of action and technical forms for seeking relief have been abolished, Rule 1.8(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, this does not mean that the form of the individual common counts, as they formerly existed, may not be used a…
-
Wesley Constr. Co. v. Lane, 323 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…n appeal from a summary judgment, where no genuine issue as to any material fact is shown to exist, the only question for the appeals court is whether the summary judgment was properly granted or denied under the law. Goodwin v. Shire, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 178; and see 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 307, and 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment § 34. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible er…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1952)
- Moss v. Condict, 154 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1944)
- Calhoun v. Corbisello, 100 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1958)