D. A. D., Inc. v. Cali, Inc.
148 So. 2d 731
Opinion
The question presented by this appeal is whether the chancellor erred when he found that the forfeiture of the security deposit under the hotel lease involved was a penalty rather than liquidated damages. The decree is affirmed upon authority of Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, Fla.1951, 58 So.2d 673; Kanter v. Safran, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 553; Pappas v. Deringer, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 770.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
D. A. D., Inc. v. Cali, Inc., 148 So. 2d 731 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).
148 So. 2d 731 (D. A. D., Inc. v. Cali, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kanter v. Safran
68 So. 2d 553 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Pappas v. Deringer
145 So. 2d 770 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Stenor, Inc. v. Lester
58 So. 2d 673 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)