Butler v. Keyes Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Butler v. Keyes Co.

385 So. 2d 9, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17071

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2020

StatusPublished

This text of 385 So. 2d 9 (Butler v. Keyes Co.) 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

Butler v. Keyes Co., 385 So. 2d 9, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17071 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the appel-lees as sellers of the subject realty did not breach the contract herein between the parties by failing to close on or before the date set by said contract as there was competent, [10]*10substantial evidence in the record that the parties had waived by their conduct such a closing date, (b) the appellants as buyers of the subject realty subsequently breached the contract herein between the parties by unreasonably refusing to close on said contract on any date, and (c) the appellants under these circumstances were not entitled to a return of their deposit monies under the contract or to an award of damages based on their above breach of said contract. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So.2d 504 (Fla.1955); Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin, 317 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see Delta Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Ehmann, 275 So.2d 269, 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the appel-lees as sellers of the subject realty did not breach the contract herein between the parties by failing to close on or before the date set by said contract as there was competent, [10]*10substantial evidence in the record that the parties had waived by their conduct such a closing date, (b) the appellants as buyers of the subject realty subsequently breached the contract herein between the parties by unreasonably refusing to close on said contract on any date, and (c) the appellants under these circumstances were not entitled to a return of their deposit monies under the contract or to an award of damages based on their above breach of said contract. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So.2d 504 (Fla.1955); Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin, 317 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see Delta Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Ehmann, 275 So.2d 269, 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 9, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-keyes-co-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack