PAUL SPERBER AND CLAIRE M. SPERBER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MURRAY BERKOWITZ, AL MOSKOVITS, AND MAX L. BLOCH, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed judgment granting specific performance of an option agreement for land purchase and denying cancellation, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court's rejection of frustration of purpose, inequitable conduct, indefiniteness, and ambiguity defenses.
An option agreement for land purchase is enforceable by specific performance where the trial court finds substantial evidence supporting rejection of defenses based on frustration of purpose, inequitable conduct, indefiniteness, and ambiguity.
[1] An option agreement for the purchase of land is enforceable by specific performance where substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings rejecting defenses of f…
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 intelligencePlaintiffs owned land subject to an option agreement held by defendants. Plaintiffs sought cancellation of the option based on frustration of purpose,…
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 Frustration Of Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment which denied their complaint for cancellation of an option agreement for the purchase of land owned by them and which granted defendant-counterclaim-ants’ counterclaim for specific performance of the contract. On appeal the appellants urge first that the court erred in denying the cancellation because the plaintiff-appellants had proved frustration of purpose, inequitable conduct and indefiniteness of contract. We have examined the record in the light of these contentions and find *726that there was conflicting evidence before the trial court upon each of them. The record reveals competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Williams McWilliams Industries, Inc. v. Heart-a-Tampa, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 920.
In addition appellants urge that the counterclaim for specific performance should not have been granted because the contract is indefinite, ambiguous and one-sided. We have examined the contract and the evidence submitted upon these issues and find that it does not appear that these defenses were established as a matter of law. White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581 (1939); Biscayne Associates v. Carson, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 871.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1939)
- Biscayne Assocs., Inc. v. Robe B. Carson and Margaret Carson, 104 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Garnett C. LeHEUP v. ST00ATE of Fla., 201 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Williams-McWILLIAMS Indus., Inc. v. Heart-A-Tampa, Inc., 201 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)