NAT RATNER, APPELLANT,
v.
CORAL TELEVISION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a judgment dismissing a broker's claim for commission, holding that the broker's right to payment accrued when the option holder failed to exercise a real estate option by the deadline, and that the broker could not be bound by a subsequent extension of the option to which he did not consent.
The broker's cause of action matured when the optionee failed to exercise the option by the specified deadline, and the broker could recover the promised $750 compensation. Because the broker did not consent to the extension agreement, he cannot be bound by it and his right to payment remained intact.
“An option is a continuing offer on the part of the optionor to sell and, if limited to a certain time, it must be accepted by the optionee within the terms of the option; and, if not accepted within the time specified, the right to do so is lost.”
Establishes the legal principle that an option right is lost if not exercised by the deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoral Television Corporation entered into an option agreement with George and Evelyn Stamos to purchase their land by April 9, 1960. The option agreem…
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 Option Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal seeking to review a final judgment for the appellee in an action for a broker’s commission.
The appellee entered into a contract with George Stamos and Evelyn I. Stamos, whereby the appellee received an option to purchase certain lands of the Stamos’ on or before April 9, 1960. The option agreement contained the following clause:
“I, the President of Coral Television Corporation, agree in the event that this option is not exercised, that Coral Television Corporation will pay to Nat *438Ratner, Realtor, the sum of $750.00 for services rendered.”
The option was not exercised by the ap-pellee and, in fact, some two months later, on June 6, 1960, the appellee and the Stamos’ entered into another agreement extending the original option. The appellant was not a party to and in no way consented to the so-called extended option agreement.
The sole question to be answered in determining this appeal is whether or not the appellant’s cause of action matured upon the failure of the appellee to conclude the purchase on or before April 9, 1960, the date set in the original option agreement. An option is a continuing offer on the part of the optionor to sell and, if limited to a certain time, it must be accepted by the optionee within the terms of the option; and, if not accepted within the time specified, the right to do so is lost. Acheson v. Smiths, Inc., 110 Fla. 240, 148 So. 576; Baker v. Coleman, 160 Fla. 297, 34 So.2d 538; 33 Fla.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 15, 19, 20, 21. While it is true that failure to exercise an option may be waived or the option may be extended, it appears that such waiver or extension is based on a new contract. 28 Fla.Jur., Sales § 25; 33 Fla.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, § 15.
This record clearly reveals that the ap-pellee did not exercise the original option within the time specified. The appellant’s right to collect the $750.00, as per the option agreement, accrued simultaneously with the appellee’s failure to exercise its option. This right of the appellant was clearly recognized by the appellee, for the record discloses that the appellee paid the appellant $250.00 of the $750.00 subsequent to its failure to exercise the option. While it is true that if the appellant had consented to the extension of the option, he would not be entitled to recover. The record is clear that he did not consent and, therefore, he cannot be bound by the agreement extending the option.
The final judgment in this cause is reversed with directions to enter a judgment for the appellant, as plaintiff, for the $750.00 agreed compensation, less the $250.00 paid on account.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Goodman, 290 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…specially concurs. SPECTOR, J., dissents. . 7 Fla.Jur. 229, Contracts, § 164; Bryan and Sons Corp. v. Klefstad, (Fla.App.1970) 237 So. 2d 236, 238. . 55 Am.Jur. 506, Vendor & Purchaser, § 38; Ratner v. Coral Television Corporation, (Fla.App.1962) 139 So. 2d 437. . Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 253, 54 So. 92, 93; See also Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498. . Winnemucca Water & Light Co. v. Model Gas Engine Works (1913), 179 Ind. 542, 101 N.E. 1007. . 1 Willist…
-
McALLISTER Enters., Inc. v. McALLISTER Hotel, Inc., 219 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…f money is not sufficient to bring the appellant within the application of the exception to the rule that a contract to convey land must be in writing and must be founded upon consideration. Cf. Ratner v. Coral Television Corporation, Fla. App.1962, 139 So. 2d 437. The third amended complaint is entitled, “Complaint to Avoid Penalty and Forfeiture.” It contains no allegations about the option to purchase the hotel property. It alleges 'instead that the sums designated by the parties as liquidated damages in…
-
R. W. S. Inv. Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 254 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…al, therefore, expired on September 30, 1966. See Jefferson Insurance Company v. Fischer, Fla.1964, 166 So. 2d 129; McGhee Interests v. Alexander Nat. Bank, 102 Fla. 140, 135 So. 545 (1931); and Ratner v. Coral Television Corporation, Fla. App.1962, 139 So. 2d 437. We also affirm the action of the trial judge in denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to seek reformation of the contract. The proposed amended complaint contained no allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake which would…
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
- Acheson v. Smith's, Inc., 110 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1933)
- Baker v. Coleman, 160 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1948)