LAKE TOWERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. T. EUSTER FURNITURE CO., 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.
This case involves a dispute over a furniture sale contract where the apartment building owner claimed the furniture was sold to the manager, not the owner. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the sale was indeed to the owner.
The sale contract was made with the apartment building owner, not the manager.
“The defense was that the sale had been made to the manager and not to the apartment building owner.”
This quote establishes the core factual dispute and defense raised by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA furniture supplier sued an apartment building owner for a $12,000 balance on a $92,748.81 furniture contract. The disputed amount related to furnitu…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action by a furniture supplier against the owner of an apartment building to recover a $12,000 balance claimed to be due under a furniture sale contract which aggregated $92,748.81. An apartment to be occupied by the then manager was furnished at greater cost than the average for the other apartments. The amount sued for represented part of the cost of furniture for the manager’s apartment. The defense was that the sale had been made to the manager and not to the apartment building owner. On the trial, which was held without a jury, the trial judge resolved the conflicting evidence and *449found the sale was to the defendant and not to the manager. The trial judge’s ruling, which is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict, finds adequate support in the record. No error having been made to appear the judgment should be and hereby is affirmed.