Francine Co. v. Haber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Francine Co. v. Haber

189 So. 2d 211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1966

DocketNo. 65-879

StatusPublished

This text of 189 So. 2d 211 (Francine Co. v. Haber) 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

Francine Co. v. Haber, 189 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee filed an action against the appellant in the civil court of record in Dade County for the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

The contentions of the appellant revolve around a pleaded affirmative defense that in connection with the purchase order the seller made a parole agreement to “detail the merchandise to the trade” (meaning that a representative of the seller would assist the purchaser in resales), and that such agreement was breached. We agree with the trial court that such collateral agreement was not a part of the purchase order and not a condition precedent to sale of their merchandise.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee filed an action against the appellant in the civil court of record in Dade County for the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

The contentions of the appellant revolve around a pleaded affirmative defense that in connection with the purchase order the seller made a parole agreement to “detail the merchandise to the trade” (meaning that a representative of the seller would assist the purchaser in resales), and that such agreement was breached. We agree with the trial court that such collateral agreement was not a part of the purchase order and not a condition precedent to sale of their merchandise.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 2d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francine-co-v-haber-fladistctapp-1966.