Lopez v. Leasit USA Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lopez v. Leasit USA Corp.

621 So. 2d 578, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7898, 1993 WL 277069

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1032

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 621 So. 2d 578 (Lopez v. Leasit USA 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

Lopez v. Leasit USA Corp., 621 So. 2d 578, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7898, 1993 WL 277069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, insofar as it determined that the agreement of the parties was a lease and not a sales contract, because that determination is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse that part of the judgment which determined that “Lopez presently has on his premises all of the equipment described in the leases.” There is competent and substantial evidence in the record that one ice machine was replaced at an additional cost of $20,000 and no evidence was presented to the contrary. Trueba v. Pawley, 407 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (appellate court has no alternative but to reverse where the judgment is not supported by competent substantial evidence), appeal dismissed, 415 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1982). We also agree with the appellant, and it is undisputed in the record, that the full purchase price of $215,000, not $200,000, was paid for the option to purchase the equipment. The remaining issues are without merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, insofar as it determined that the agreement of the parties was a lease and not a sales contract, because that determination is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse that part of the judgment which determined that “Lopez presently has on his premises all of the equipment described in the leases.” There is competent and substantial evidence in the record that one ice machine was replaced at an additional cost of $20,000 and no evidence was presented to the contrary. Trueba v. Pawley, 407 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (appellate court has no alternative but to reverse where the judgment is not supported by competent substantial evidence), appeal dismissed, 415 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1982). We also agree with the appellant, and it is undisputed in the record, that the full purchase price of $215,000, not $200,000, was paid for the option to purchase the equipment. The remaining issues are without merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 So. 2d 578, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7898, 1993 WL 277069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-leasit-usa-corp-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack