YARNELLE
v.
KOLLAR
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.
Yarnelle sued to rescind a bill of sale and purchase agreement, alleging fraud by Kollar. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that no fraud occurred and that the parties had dealt in good faith, despite the plaintiff's business difficulties with health authorities.
The Court affirmed the finding that there was no fraud in the inducement of the contract and that both parties dealt in good faith. The agreement should not be rescinded.
“I find no element of bad faith on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant.”
Master's finding establishing that both parties dealt honestly and without fraudulent intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYarnelle and Kollar entered into an agreement for the purchase of personal property to be used in a business, which also involved a lease of real esta…
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 Caveat Emptor cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a bill of complaint “to rescind, cancel and set aside an alleged bill of sale and purchase agreement” and alleged various acts on the part of the appellee (defendant) which he claimed constituted fraud.
After a full hearing before the Master, much testimony was 'taken with reference to the allegations of fraud. The Master found from the evidence and the pleadings that there was no fraud in the inducement of the contract. The Master stated:
“I find no element of bad faith on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
“The plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that his business was closed because he was unable to get a clearance from the inspector for the Department of Public Health. But he was unable to establish that the objections of the inspector were traceable to any default on the part of the seller.”
Exceptions were filed to the Master’s Report which were overruled and the findings and recommendations of the Master were “ratified, approved and confirmed” by the Chancellor. In the final decree the Chancellor stated:
“It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, that the Master’s findings of lack of fraud in the inducement of the contract involved in this cause is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and absent the existence of such fraud, I find that the Master has conceived and correctly applied the correct rules of law and that no error is found in the other findings of fact contained in the Master’s report.”
This record discloses that the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of certain personal property to be used in a business which also involved a lease of some real estate and an option for an additional lease. Such matters were somewhat complicated and involved legal questions not necessary to discuss here. The parties, dealing in good faith with one another, attempted to prepare the necessary documents without the aid or assistance of counsel or legal advisers. The appellant was put in possession of the personal property and also the real estate involved in the lease. The venture did not turn out as he expected and when he got in trouble with the health authorities, he became very much dissatisfied and this suit resulted. A Master, who heard the testimony, filed his report con taining-findings of fact and conclusions of law. The report of the Special Master has been approved in every respect. We have carefully considered the entire record and all assignments of error and such assignments of • error are without merit. Croom v. Ocala Plumbing & Electric Co., 62 Fla. 460, 57 So. 243; McAdow v. Smith, 127 Fla. 29, 172 So. 448; Harmon v. Harmon, Fla., 40 So. 2d 209; and Florida National Bank & Trust Co. v. Brown, Fla., 47 So. 2d 748.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and SEBRING and TERRELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bouton v. Mittie Lee Bouton, 103 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…lor will not be set aside in the absence of a clear showing of error. Croom v. Ocala Plumbing & Electric Co., 1911, 62 Fla. 460, 57 So. 243; Florida National Bank & Trust Co. of Miami v. Brown, Fla.1949, 47 So. 2d 748; Yarnelle v. Kollar, Fla. 1953, 62 So. 2d 915. We have examined the record and the briefs of counsel in this cause and heard the oral arguments at the bar of this court. It is apparent to the court that the master based his findings upon substantial, though conflicting, evidence, and that thes…
Authorities Cited
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Croom v. Ocala Plumbing & Elec. Co., 62 Fla. 460 (Fla. 1911)
- Fla. Nat. Bank Tr. Co. v. Brown, 47 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1949)
- McAdow v. Smith, 127 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1937)