Miller v. Paradise Point Investment Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. Paradise Point Investment Corp.

205 So. 2d 352, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1967

DocketNos. 67-245, 67-246

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 So. 2d 352 (Miller v. Paradise Point Investment 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

Miller v. Paradise Point Investment Corp., 205 So. 2d 352, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Involved in these appeals is whether or not a broker with an unsigned agreement can recover under counts of an amended complaint sounding in tort against a purchaser, whom the broker admits he did not introduce to the seller.

The trial court dismissed the counts relating to the tort action against the corporate purchaser and its officers, and the causes are still pending on the alleged contract counts against the seller. We affirm.

The counts of the amended complaint sounded in tort against the prospective purchaser and its officers for alleged interference with the broker’s contract and, without the allegation that the broker brought the seller and prospective purchaser together, it failed to state a cause of action. Therefore, the cases relied on by the appellant [John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jiminez, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 575; Mead Corporation v. Mason, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 592; Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 24; Clark v. Wilder, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 32] are not applicable.

The final orders here under review are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Involved in these appeals is whether or not a broker with an unsigned agreement can recover under counts of an amended complaint sounding in tort against a purchaser, whom the broker admits he did not introduce to the seller.

The trial court dismissed the counts relating to the tort action against the corporate purchaser and its officers, and the causes are still pending on the alleged contract counts against the seller. We affirm.

The counts of the amended complaint sounded in tort against the prospective purchaser and its officers for alleged interference with the broker’s contract and, without the allegation that the broker brought the seller and prospective purchaser together, it failed to state a cause of action. Therefore, the cases relied on by the appellant [John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jiminez, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 575; Mead Corporation v. Mason, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 592; Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 24; Clark v. Wilder, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 32] are not applicable.

The final orders here under review are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 So. 2d 352, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-paradise-point-investment-corp-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack