Kaskisto v. North American Equitable Life Assurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaskisto v. North American Equitable Life Assurance Co.

405 So. 2d 248, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1981

DocketNo. 80-2403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 248 (Kaskisto v. North American Equitable Life Assurance Co.) 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

Kaskisto v. North American Equitable Life Assurance Co., 405 So. 2d 248, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21489 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Because we find no evidence of appellant’s acceptance of the changed contract terms submitted by appellee, we reverse the final judgment entered by the trial court. The court’s announcement that its decision resulted from appellant’s failure to object to the altered mortgage interest rate conflicts with the principle of law that silence does not constitute an acceptance of an offer unless a duty to speak has arisen from a past relationship of the parties, their previous dealings, or other circumstances. 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 41(e) (1963). Appellant neither initialed the changes in the contract nor performed any act which might operate as an estoppel. See Mayer v. First National Co. of Sarasota, 99 Fla. 173, 125 So.2d 909 (Fla.1930). The requirement that acceptance of an offer to sell realty must be absolute and unconditional, Koplin v. Bennett, 155 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963), was not met.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Because we find no evidence of appellant’s acceptance of the changed contract terms submitted by appellee, we reverse the final judgment entered by the trial court. The court’s announcement that its decision resulted from appellant’s failure to object to the altered mortgage interest rate conflicts with the principle of law that silence does not constitute an acceptance of an offer unless a duty to speak has arisen from a past relationship of the parties, their previous dealings, or other circumstances. 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 41(e) (1963). Appellant neither initialed the changes in the contract nor performed any act which might operate as an estoppel. See Mayer v. First National Co. of Sarasota, 99 Fla. 173, 125 So.2d 909 (Fla.1930). The requirement that acceptance of an offer to sell realty must be absolute and unconditional, Koplin v. Bennett, 155 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963), was not met.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 248, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaskisto-v-north-american-equitable-life-assurance-co-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack