Blitstein v. Intervisa Corp. ex rel. Bonefish Yacht Club, Ltd.

545 So. 2d 308, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 976, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2089, 1989 WL 36174
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 18, 1989·No. No. 88-785·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is well settled that one may not simultaneously repudiate a contract for conducting a business venture — here, by recovering compensatory damages in the amount of the sum invested and punitive damages based on fraudulent inducement — and also secure the recovery of lost profits which presupposes the continued existence of the agreement. Noord v. Katz, 481 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc., 288 So.2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 416 (Fla.1974); Hauser v. Van Zile, 269 So.2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In accordance with this principle, the judgment under review is reduced by the $200,000 found by the jury to be recoverable for lost profits. Since we find no other error, the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.

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

Blitstein v. Intervisa Corp. ex rel. Bonefish Yacht Club, Ltd., 545 So. 2d 308, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 976, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2089, 1989 WL 36174 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

545 So. 2d 308 (Blitstein v. Intervisa Corp. ex rel. Bonefish Yacht Club, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Noord v. Katz
481 So. 2d 1228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc.
288 So. 2d 526 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Hauser v. Van Zile
269 So. 2d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)