O. J. TOOKE, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN A. THOM, AND ORPET, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Appellant Tooke appeals the trial court's dismissal of counts two and three of his amended complaint against Orpet, Inc. in a breach of contract action. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal absent allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.
A contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal absent allegations of fraud or other misrepresentation. The dismissal of counts two and three was therefore proper.
[1] A contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal.
[2] A party abandons an appeal of a trial court's ruling by failing to argue it.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellees filed their motion to dismiss counts two and three on the grounds that a contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal.”
States the legal basis for dismissal that the trial court and appellate court found controlling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 26, 1961, Tooke entered into a written contract under seal with Thom regarding real property. The contract provided that Tooke was instrume…
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 Under Seal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, O. J. Tooke, appeals an order of the trial court dismissing counts two and three of his amended complaint. The effect of this ruling was to dismiss Orpet, Inc. as a party defendant to breach of contract action.
The amended complaint alleges on or about October 26, 1961, appellant entered into a written contract under seal with ap-pellee Thom. In this contract regarding resale of a certain realty, it was agreed that appellant was instrumental in negotiating the initial sale of the real property described therein on behalf of appellee Thom. The contract further provided that appellee Thom “or his assigns” would complete the purchase of the real estate and that upon a subsequent sale of this property appellant was to receive one half of all amounts over and above the original expenditure incurred by appellee Thom in acquisition of the property. Appellee Thom, pursuant to the terms of the contract, purchased the property. On or about February 13, 1969, appellee Thom, or his assigns, sold the property and refused to pay appellant one half interest in any profit pursuant to the contract. Count two of the amended complaint sought to include appel-lee Orpet, Inc., as a party defendant, on the theory that it was either an undisclosed principal or assignee of appellee Thom. The complaint further alleged that appellee Thom was the president, treasurer and a director of appellee Orpet, Inc. Appellees filed their motion to dismiss counts two and three on the grounds that a contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal. The court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss and this timely appeal ensued. It appears that appellant has abandoned his attack on the trial court’s ruling as to count three by failing to argue it.
We have read the record and briefs, oral argument was waived. There being no allegation of fraud or other misrepresentations set out in count two of the amended complaint, we decide this case upon the long established and recognized law pertaining to the execution of contracts under seal.
On authority of McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 568, cited in the well-reasoned order of the trial judge, the cause is hereby
Affirmed.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abramowitz v. Siegel, 290 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Tooke v. Thom, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 34; Pentecostal Holiness Church v. Mauney, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 762; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So. 2d 568; Bellaire v. Brown, Fla. 1936, 124 Fla. 47, 168 So. 625. OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, TL, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McMULLEN v. McMULLEN, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)