Don Carlos Foods, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Don Carlos Foods, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp.

517 So. 2d 34, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2585, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10946, 1987 WL 1344

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2518

StatusPublished

This text of 517 So. 2d 34 (Don Carlos Foods, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp.) 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

Don Carlos Foods, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 517 So. 2d 34, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2585, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10946, 1987 WL 1344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment in favor of ap-pellee, Liquid Carbonic Corporation, entered upon rendition of the jury’s verdict. We find no merit in appellant’s contentions that the court should have allowed testimony pertaining to lost profits, see Murciano v. Urroz, 455 So.2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and should have denied appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment on the fraudulent inducement claim.

As to Liquid Carbonic’s cross-appeal, we agree that the trial court should have instructed the jury on enforceable warranty disclaimers and remedy limitations provided by contract. §§ 672.316(2), .719, Fla. Stat. (1979). We therefore reverse the judgment in favor of Don Carlos Foods, Inc., and remand for a new trial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment in favor of ap-pellee, Liquid Carbonic Corporation, entered upon rendition of the jury’s verdict. We find no merit in appellant’s contentions that the court should have allowed testimony pertaining to lost profits, see Murciano v. Urroz, 455 So.2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and should have denied appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment on the fraudulent inducement claim.

As to Liquid Carbonic’s cross-appeal, we agree that the trial court should have instructed the jury on enforceable warranty disclaimers and remedy limitations provided by contract. §§ 672.316(2), .719, Fla. Stat. (1979). We therefore reverse the judgment in favor of Don Carlos Foods, Inc., and remand for a new trial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 34, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2585, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10946, 1987 WL 1344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/don-carlos-foods-inc-v-liquid-carbonic-corp-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack