Mendelsohn v. Florida A & M Tape & Packaging, Inc.
This text of 602 So. 2d 622 (Mendelsohn v. Florida A & M Tape & Packaging, Inc.) 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.
Opinions
AFFIRMED. We agree with the trial court that the attorney’s fee provision in the parties’ agreement for purchase and sale of a business was a proper predicate for the award of fees in a subsequent dispute over compliance with a separately executed covenant not to compete provided for in the agreement. Although separately executed by the seller, the covenant not to compete, and certain terms thereof, was provided for in the agreement. The agreement, and the mutual promises provided for therein, was the legal predicate for the execution of the covenant by the seller and for enforcement of the covenant. Accordingly, the provision for fees in the agreement was a sufficient legal basis upon which to recover fees in an action to enforce the covenant. Cf. Durden v. Century 21 Compass Points, Inc., 541 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, Lepeska v. Durden, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla.1989).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
602 So. 2d 622, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7369, 1992 WL 153952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelsohn-v-florida-a-m-tape-packaging-inc-fladistctapp-1992.