Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc.

696 So. 2d 693, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 208, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 428, 1997 WL 186282

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1997

DocketNo. 87385

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 693 (Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 696 So. 2d 693, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 208, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 428, 1997 WL 186282 (Fla. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review a decision ruling on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

IS A BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS?

Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So.2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This question is controlled by PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Associates, 690 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1997). We quash Linn-Well and remand for proceedings consistent with PK Ventures, and for consideration of Preston & Farley’s alternative arguments for affirmance of the trial court’s final summary judgment.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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