Arvida Corp. v. Nu-Way Plumbing, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arvida Corp. v. Nu-Way Plumbing, Inc.

295 So. 2d 118, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7053

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1974

DocketNo. 74-44

StatusPublished

This text of 295 So. 2d 118 (Arvida Corp. v. Nu-Way Plumbing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arvida Corp. v. Nu-Way Plumbing, Inc., 295 So. 2d 118, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7053 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The action was for recision of a contract because of mistake. As plaintiff-appellee concedes, the complaint was defective for failure to allege the mistake with particularity. F.R.C.P. 1.120(b), 30 F.S. A.; Curtis v. Briscoe, 129 So.2d 450 (2d D.C.A. Fla.1961) and Van Meter v. Bank of Clearwater, 276 So.2d 241 (2d D.C.A. Fla. 1973).

However, plaintiff urges that the complaint can be sustained upon some theory of a breach of oral contract. It may or may not have such cause of action. However, even under the most liberal construction of the procedural law of pleading, we are unable to glean a cause such as this within the corners of the present complaint. Orderly procedure and fairness to [119]*119the defendant in being placed in a position so it can frame its defenses require that plaintiff be required to re-plead.

We reverse with instructions that plaintiff’s complaint he dismissed, but with leave to amend.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and MOORE, JOHN H., II, Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI