Halligan v. Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc.

568 So. 2d 997, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8189, 1990 WL 160710
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 25, 1990·No. No. 89-2082·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment rendered in favor of the defendant is reversed. There is at least a question of fact as to who were the parties to the original contract, whether appellant was an intended beneficiary of the contract, whether appellant’s deceased husband was acting as her agent in procuring the initial inspection, and whether it was appellant who contracted for the renewal inspection. See Warren v. Monahan Beaches Jewelry Center, Inc., 548 So.2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Cf. Schmidt v. Matilsky, 490 So.2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Sheehan v. Hubbard, 378 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Winston v. J.D. Gramm, 277 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 283 So.2d 565 (Fla.1973). See also Cleckner v. Republic Van & Storage Co., Inc., 556 F.2d 766 (5th Cir.1977).

REVERSED.

HARRIS, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

Halligan v. Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc., 568 So. 2d 997, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8189, 1990 WL 160710 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

568 So. 2d 997 (Halligan v. Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warren v. MONAHAN BEACHES JEWELRY CTR
548 So. 2d 870 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Winston v. JD Gramm, Inc.
277 So. 2d 59 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Schmidt v. Matilsky
490 So. 2d 237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Sheehan v. Hubbard
378 So. 2d 1238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)