Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc.

559 So. 2d 1175, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 1990 WL 8662

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1182

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 1175 (Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, 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

Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1175, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 1990 WL 8662 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Comreal Miami, Inc., appeals from a final judgment denying recovery in an action for a real estate commission. We affirm.

At trial, the dispute between Comreal and Hatari focused on two questions. The first question was whether the brokerage contract was an exclusive right to sale agreement; the second was whether the agreement had been terminated. The court instructed the jury on both issues. Without objection from either party, a general verdict form was submitted to the jury. The jury found for the defendant, and the court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Based on the “two issue” rule, we affirm. Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So.2d 618 (Fla.1980); Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977). “In the absence of an objection to the use of the general verdict, the ‘two issue’ rule dictates that reversal would be improper because appellant is unable to demonstrate prejudice.” Pfister v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., 405 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So.2d 876 (Fla.1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Comreal Miami, Inc., appeals from a final judgment denying recovery in an action for a real estate commission. We affirm.

At trial, the dispute between Comreal and Hatari focused on two questions. The first question was whether the brokerage contract was an exclusive right to sale agreement; the second was whether the agreement had been terminated. The court instructed the jury on both issues. Without objection from either party, a general verdict form was submitted to the jury. The jury found for the defendant, and the court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Based on the “two issue” rule, we affirm. Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So.2d 618 (Fla.1980); Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977). “In the absence of an objection to the use of the general verdict, the ‘two issue’ rule dictates that reversal would be improper because appellant is unable to demonstrate prejudice.” Pfister v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., 405 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So.2d 876 (Fla.1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 1175, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 1990 WL 8662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comreal-miami-inc-v-hatari-imports-inc-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack