PERSHING INDUSTRIES, INC.
v.
STONEMOR FLORIDA SUBSIDIARY, LLC
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 clear and unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its plain language, and the use of different contractual terms in different provisions implies different meanings were intended.
[1] The use of different terms in different provisions of a contract strongly implies that different meanings were intended by the parties.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced pursuant to its plain language.”
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, establishing the standard for contract interpretation
Pershing Industries and StoneMor Florida Subsidiary entered into a contract that contained different language in different paragraphs, creating a disp…
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 Plain Language Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2367 Lower Tribunal No. 20-6945
________________
Pershing Industries, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
StoneMor Florida Subsidiary, LLC, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Robert H. Yaffe, P.A., and Robert H. Yaffe; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Douglas M. Kramer; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Daniel Nordby (Tallahassee), for appellant. Duane Morris LLP, and Kevin E. Vance (Boca Raton); Duane Morris LLP, and Richard D. Shane, for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Having carefully reviewed the language of the contract at issue under traditional rules of interpretation, Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983, 986 (Fla. 2015) (“Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced pursuant to its plain language.”); Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]he use of different terms in paragraphs 24 and 28 tends to indicate that a different meaning was intended. As a general proposition, the use of different language in different contractual provisions strongly implies that a different meaning was intended.”), we affirm the trial court’s well-reasoned order granting summary judgment for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- KEL Homes, LLC v. Michael and Tonia Burris, 933 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015)