Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Amar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Amar

570 So. 2d 359, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8120, 1990 WL 159657

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3080

StatusPublished

This text of 570 So. 2d 359 (Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Amar) 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

Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Amar, 570 So. 2d 359, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8120, 1990 WL 159657 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s final judgment finding that defendant/ap-pellee/Jacky Amar (“Amar”) was not individually liable under an agreement executed on January 13, 1987, between Amar and plaintiff/appellant/Babbit Electronics, Inc. (“Babbit”). The agreement is clear and unequivocal that Amar executed the agreement in his individual capacity and not in any corporate capacity. Amar signed the agreement in his name, with no designation that he was signing for some other party. An unqualified and unambiguous signature imposes personal liability upon the party signing the agreement as a matter of law. New York Financial, Inc. v. J & W Holding Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore, Amar is personally obligated to pay the $11,104.55 due under the agreement. Accordingly, the final judgment must be entered in favor of Babbit and against Amar for that amount, plus interest.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s final judgment finding that defendant/ap-pellee/Jacky Amar (“Amar”) was not individually liable under an agreement executed on January 13, 1987, between Amar and plaintiff/appellant/Babbit Electronics, Inc. (“Babbit”). The agreement is clear and unequivocal that Amar executed the agreement in his individual capacity and not in any corporate capacity. Amar signed the agreement in his name, with no designation that he was signing for some other party. An unqualified and unambiguous signature imposes personal liability upon the party signing the agreement as a matter of law. New York Financial, Inc. v. J & W Holding Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore, Amar is personally obligated to pay the $11,104.55 due under the agreement. Accordingly, the final judgment must be entered in favor of Babbit and against Amar for that amount, plus interest.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 So. 2d 359, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8120, 1990 WL 159657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babbit-electronics-inc-v-amar-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack