Mars International Corp. v. Pan American Trading Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mars International Corp. v. Pan American Trading Corp.

561 So. 2d 13, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3188, 1990 WL 58273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1438

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 561 So. 2d 13 (Mars International Corp. v. Pan American Trading 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

Mars International Corp. v. Pan American Trading Corp., 561 So. 2d 13, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3188, 1990 WL 58273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs/counter-defendants, Mars International Corp. and Frank Berenson, filed a complaint for damages alleging loss of commissions on a brokerage contract. Thereafter, the defendant/counter-plaintiff, Pan American Trading Corp., filed a counterclaim for damages alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and rescission. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs damages on their claim. However, the trial court also awarded damages to the defendant on its counterclaim. As a result, the defendant recovered a net amount of $13,470. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in awarding damages to the defendant on its counterclaim. We disagree.

This court will not disturb the trial court’s findings and conclusions where such findings and conclusions are based upon competent substantial evidence. See James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Plaza Builders, Inc. v. Regis, 502 So.2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In the instant case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions were based upon competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs/counter-defendants, Mars International Corp. and Frank Berenson, filed a complaint for damages alleging loss of commissions on a brokerage contract. Thereafter, the defendant/counter-plaintiff, Pan American Trading Corp., filed a counterclaim for damages alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and rescission. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs damages on their claim. However, the trial court also awarded damages to the defendant on its counterclaim. As a result, the defendant recovered a net amount of $13,470. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in awarding damages to the defendant on its counterclaim. We disagree.

This court will not disturb the trial court’s findings and conclusions where such findings and conclusions are based upon competent substantial evidence. See James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Plaza Builders, Inc. v. Regis, 502 So.2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In the instant case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions were based upon competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 13, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3188, 1990 WL 58273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mars-international-corp-v-pan-american-trading-corp-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack