HENRY CALOSSO, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA, 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 held that the absence of essential terms meant no binding loan agreement existed, thus the bank did not breach any agreement.
Plaintiff sued a bank for damages, alleging breach of an agreement to lend money for a business deal. The bank refused the loan shortly before the dea…
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 Essential Terms Of A Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Henry Calosso, plaintiff below, brought suit against First National Bank of Pompano Beach, Florida, for damages claimed as a result of the bank’s breach of an alleged agreement to lend money.
It was alleged that the defendant bank had agreed to make a loan to the plaintiff to complete a certain business deal undertaken by the latter, but that the bank refused the loan just’prior to the date scheduled for consummation of plaintiff’s deal. The reason assigned for such refusal was that the contemplated loan did not qualify under banking regulations. The plaintiff alleged that due to the short advance notice of refusal he was unable to finance his deal and, through certain actions by him in reliance upon the bank’s “agreement,” suffered damages. The bank denied the allegations of the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted.
Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and depositions, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is apparent that the essentials of a binding loan agreement were conspicuously absent. There was no understanding as to when any money was to be advanced nor was there any agreement as to method and time of repayment or rate of interest. Nothing was signed and there was no understanding as to any particular amount to be loaned, although the plaintiff avowedly expected to get “approximately $40,000.00.”
It clearly appears that the defendant bank made no firm commitment which would justify the plaintiff acting in reliance thereon. The trial court, therefore, did not err in piercing the paper issues and entering summary judgment for the defendant.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Balter v. PAN Am. Bank OF Hialeah, 383 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…to the exact amount of money, the interest rate or time and method of repayment; furthermore, nothing was ever signed and no documents were exchanged between the parties. We affirm on the authority of Calosso v. First National Bank of Pompano Beach, 143 So. 2d 343 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). Compare, Bluevack Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Company of Florida, 331 So. 2d 359 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). The conversations between the parties constitute merely preliminary negotiations. See Bluevack, supra, and Goff v. Indian Lake Esta…