Meyer v. Martin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meyer v. Martin

635 So. 2d 984, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3431, 1994 WL 124475

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 13, 1994·No. Nos. 92-2583, 93-0737·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these appeals and reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of appellant. We agree with the appellant that the trial court’s construction of the contract in question would render the contract unenforceable as a matter of law. See Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc. v. Tenser, 407 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (where one party has unrestricted right to terminate a contract at any time, contract is void for lack of mutuality of obligation), rev. denied, 415 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1982); also see Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott, 420 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these appeals and reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of appellant. We agree with the appellant that the trial court’s construction of the contract in question would render the contract unenforceable as a matter of law. See Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc. v. Tenser, 407 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (where one party has unrestricted right to terminate a contract at any time, contract is void for lack of mutuality of obligation), rev. denied, 415 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1982); also see Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott, 420 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Meyer v. Martin, 635 So. 2d 984, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3431, 1994 WL 124475 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

635 So. 2d 984 (Meyer v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related