PETERS ET AL.
v.
BOWER ET AL.
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.
Peters and other lot purchasers in Sunkist Estates Subdivision sought to enforce alleged promises by developer Herman Bower to improve streets, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal because the affidavit submitted to county commissioners stated only an 'intention' rather than a binding contract.
The affidavit did not state facts sufficient to show an enforceable contract or activate the declaratory judgment statute because it expressed only an 'intention' to perform the work rather than manifesting the essential elements of a binding contract.
“The quoted provision states nothing more than an 'intention' on the part of Herman Bower to grade the streets shown on the plat and rock and pave them in accordance with the Dade County specification 'on or before two years after date.'”
Establishes that the affidavit language expressed intention rather than binding contractual commitment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman Bower, owner of real estate southwest of Miami known as Sunkist Estates Subdivision, presented a plat to the Dade County Board of County Commis…
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 Formation cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
So far as pertinent the amended complaint initiating this case alleges that Herman Bower, the owner of certain real estate •southwest of Miami, known as Sunkist Estates Subdivision, presented a plat of said lands to the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County. In affidavit Bower proposed to the County Commissioners that if they would approve the plat he would grade, rock and pave the streets indicated thereon and oil them when .the government will permit. The complaint filed by co-appellants who are purchasers of lots in the subdivision prayed that Herman Bower be compelled to comply with said contract. The complaint was dismissed and this appeal was prosecuted.
The real point on which the controversy turns is whether or not the complaint states facts sufficient to show a contract or to activate the statute for declaratory decree.
The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the second paragraph of the affidavit submitted with the request to approve the plat, as follows:
“A plat entitled, “Sunkist Estates” is being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. I am connected with the persons offering said plat in the following capacity: Owner. It is the intention of the said subdivider to grade all the streets shown on said plat and rock and pave them in accordance with Dade County Specifications and to have the work completed on or before Tzvo years after date. It is also the intention of said subdividers to have the following additional work done within said subdivision, on or before the time above stated, viz.: * * * ”
The quoted provision states nothing more than an “intention” on the part of Herman Bower to grade the streets shown on the plat and rock and pave them in accordance with the Dade County specification “on or before two years after date.” There are other provisions of the affidavit that contribute to the “intention” but considered in toto we do not think it amounted to an enforceable contract. The elements of such a contract were not present and it was not sufficient to activate the Declaratory Judgments Act. Scott v. S. H. Kress & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 714; Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 157 Fla. 27, 24 So. 2d 808.
The decree appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohen v. Amerifirst Bank, 537 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…and definite proposition’ was lacking. See Goff v. Indian Lakes Estates, Inc., 178 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Statements of future intentions, or an agreement to agree in the future, do not give rise to an enforceable contract. Peters v. Bower, 63 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1953); Brown v. Dobry, 311 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Beverage Dist. Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 440 F. 2d 21 (9th Cir.1971); Bogley v. U.S., 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 514 F. 2d 1027, 1032 (1975).” "... As this Court has determined in paragraph 1…
-
Nat'l By-Products, Inc. v. The United States, 405 F.2d 1256 (Ct. Cl. 1969)…is area result from factual considerations in each ease, and none can serve as authoritative precedents in the traditional sense. For a recognition of the general principle, see Cabaud v. Federal Ins. Co., 37 F. 2d 23 (C.A. 2 1930); Peters v. Bower, 63 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1953); Harper v. Kennedy, 15 Ill.2d 46, 153 N.E. 2d 801, 805 (1958); Phoenix Spring Beverage Co. v. Harvard Brewing Co., 312 Mass. 501, 45 N.E. 2d 473 (1942); Anderson v. Backlund, 159 Minn. 423, 199 N.W. 90 (1924); Broad Street Nat’l Bank of T…
Authorities Cited
- Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 157 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1946)