Dentaland, P.A. v. St. Stephen Ltd. Partnership ex rel. LEF/Delray Mall, Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dentaland, P.A. v. St. Stephen Ltd. Partnership ex rel. LEF/Delray Mall, Ltd.

729 So. 2d 1012, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4679, 1999 WL 212100

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1175

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 1012 (Dentaland, P.A. v. St. Stephen Ltd. Partnership ex rel. LEF/Delray Mall, Ltd.) 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

Dentaland, P.A. v. St. Stephen Ltd. Partnership ex rel. LEF/Delray Mall, Ltd., 729 So. 2d 1012, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4679, 1999 WL 212100 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Since a party to a contract may not recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that have been adequately addressed or expressly contradicted in a later written contract, see Hillcrest Pacific Corp. v. Yamamura, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D520, 521, 727 So.2d 1053, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Englezios v. Batmasian, 593 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Saunders Leasing Sys., Inc. v. Gulf Cent. Distribution Ctr., Inc., 513 So.2d 1303, 1306-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Schubot v. McDonalds Corp., 757 F.Supp. 1351, 1356 (S.D.Fla.1990), the fraud action was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Since a party to a contract may not recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that have been adequately addressed or expressly contradicted in a later written contract, see Hillcrest Pacific Corp. v. Yamamura, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D520, 521, 727 So.2d 1053, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Englezios v. Batmasian, 593 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Saunders Leasing Sys., Inc. v. Gulf Cent. Distribution Ctr., Inc., 513 So.2d 1303, 1306-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Schubot v. McDonalds Corp., 757 F.Supp. 1351, 1356 (S.D.Fla.1990), the fraud action was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 1012, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4679, 1999 WL 212100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dentaland-pa-v-st-stephen-ltd-partnership-ex-rel-lefdelray-mall-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack