Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone

506 So. 2d 1180, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1253, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1646

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 506 So. 2d 1180 (Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone) 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

Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone, 506 So. 2d 1180, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1253, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8145 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Although the language of the case law is somewhat confusing we believe the law of damages, as enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court, authorizes an award of damages to a contractual vendee to include the profit made by the vendor on the sale of the property to a subsequent purchaser even though there is no proof of fraud or bad faith. See Gassner v. Lockett, 101 So.2d 33 (Fla.1958). We also believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant, either by its actions throughout the course of the transaction spanning over two years or in failing to properly invoke its rights, had waived the provisions of the contract making time of the essence. Finally, since the damages involved herein, the deposit and the profit on the subsequent sale, involve amounts determined to have been wrongfully withheld by the appellant from appellee at a date certain in the past, we reject appellant’s claim that interest was not recoverable. See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985).

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Although the language of the case law is somewhat confusing we believe the law of damages, as enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court, authorizes an award of damages to a contractual vendee to include the profit made by the vendor on the sale of the property to a subsequent purchaser even though there is no proof of fraud or bad faith. See Gassner v. Lockett, 101 So.2d 33 (Fla.1958). We also believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant, either by its actions throughout the course of the transaction spanning over two years or in failing to properly invoke its rights, had waived the provisions of the contract making time of the essence. Finally, since the damages involved herein, the deposit and the profit on the subsequent sale, involve amounts determined to have been wrongfully withheld by the appellant from appellee at a date certain in the past, we reject appellant’s claim that interest was not recoverable. See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985).

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 1180, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1253, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppola-enterprises-inc-v-alfone-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack