HAROLD A. MILLER AND ELMER E. BLACKBURN, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS MILLER & BLACKBURN, APPELLANTS,
v.
PARADISE POINT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; HAROLD A. MILLER ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. HENRY G. SIMMONITE, 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 addresses whether a broker can recover in tort for interference with a contract when the broker did not introduce the seller and the prospective purchaser. The court affirmed the dismissal of these tort counts, finding they failed to state a cause of action.
No, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for tortious interference because the broker did not allege that they brought the seller and prospective purchaser together.
“Involved in these appeals is whether or not a broker with an unsigned agreement can recover under counts of an amended complaint sounding in tort against a purchaser, whom the broker admits he did not introduce to the seller.”
This quote frames the central legal question of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, brokers, sued a corporate purchaser and its officers in tort for alleged interference with their contract. The brokers admitted they did n…
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 Brokerage Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Involved in these appeals is whether or not a broker with an unsigned agreement can recover under counts of an amended complaint sounding in tort against a purchaser, whom the broker admits he did not introduce to the seller.
The trial court dismissed the counts relating to the tort action against the corporate purchaser and its officers, and the causes are still pending on the alleged contract counts against the seller. We affirm.
The counts of the amended complaint sounded in tort against the prospective purchaser and its officers for alleged interference with the broker’s contract and, without the allegation that the broker brought the seller and prospective purchaser together, it failed to state a cause of action. Therefore, the cases relied on by the appellant [John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jiminez, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 575; Mead Corporation v. Mason, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 592; Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 24; Clark v. Wilder, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 32] are not applicable.
The final orders here under review are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Paradise Point, 211 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 205 So. 2d 352.…
-
Cmty. Cablecasting Corp. v. Daniels & Assocs., Inc., 215 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…. Skipworth (Tex.Civ.App.1951), 244 S.W. 2d 299, 300. . Rule 1.190(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. . Mead Corporation v. Mason (Fla.App.1966), 191 So. 2d 592; Flynn v. McGinty, supra note 2. . Miller v. Paradise Point Investment Corporation (Fla.App.1967), 205 So. 2d 352.…
Authorities Cited
- The Mead Corp. v. Mason, 191 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Emil Morton v. The Mastan Co., Inc., 181 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Myron Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Assocs., Inc., 192 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Clark v. Wilder, 192 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)