Dial v. Yell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dial v. Yell

432 So. 2d 75, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1983

DocketNo. 82-548

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 432 So. 2d 75 (Dial v. Yell) 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

Dial v. Yell, 432 So. 2d 75, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

This is a case involving an alleged ambiguity in a contract. We find the contract to be unambiguous as a matter of law and reverse. We also hold that there was no intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship.

It will add little to the ever burgeoning state of the law to set forth the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that the interpretation of the terms of this contract was entrusted to the jury and we believe erroneously so. The terms of the contract are plain, clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Further, we find that no intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship was established. The court erroneously denied appellants’ motions for directed verdict as to the breach of contract and intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship. This being so, the punitive damages award must also fall. Accordingly the jury verdict and accompanying final judgment are reversed.

This cause is remanded to the trial court for the entry of these directed verdicts and final judgment in favor of the appellants.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, G.J., and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

HERSEY, Judge.

This is a case involving an alleged ambiguity in a contract. We find the contract to be unambiguous as a matter of law and reverse. We also hold that there was no intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship.

It will add little to the ever burgeoning state of the law to set forth the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that the interpretation of the terms of this contract was entrusted to the jury and we believe erroneously so. The terms of the contract are plain, clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Further, we find that no intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship was established. The court erroneously denied appellants’ motions for directed verdict as to the breach of contract and intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship. This being so, the punitive damages award must also fall. Accordingly the jury verdict and accompanying final judgment are reversed.

This cause is remanded to the trial court for the entry of these directed verdicts and final judgment in favor of the appellants.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, G.J., and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 75, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dial-v-yell-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack