Pena v. Rourke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pena v. Rourke

728 So. 2d 1231, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4318, 1999 WL 187359

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1927

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 1231 (Pena v. Rourke) 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

Pena v. Rourke, 728 So. 2d 1231, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4318, 1999 WL 187359 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm a summary judgment entered in favor of the sellers in this action by the buyers to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of real property. The record reflects that upon receipt of the buyers’ initial offer, the sellers modified its terms by a counter-offer. Although the sale price in the counter-offer was accepted by at least one of the buyers, they did not accept an additional provision in terms identical to, or even essentially the same as, the additional term proposed. It is well settled that an acceptance must be according to the same terms as an offer. Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So.2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Press v. Jordan, 670 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). As a contract would not have been formed even if the alleged acceptance had been communicated to the sellers, all other issues are moot.

STONE, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm a summary judgment entered in favor of the sellers in this action by the buyers to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of real property. The record reflects that upon receipt of the buyers’ initial offer, the sellers modified its terms by a counter-offer. Although the sale price in the counter-offer was accepted by at least one of the buyers, they did not accept an additional provision in terms identical to, or even essentially the same as, the additional term proposed. It is well settled that an acceptance must be according to the same terms as an offer. Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So.2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Press v. Jordan, 670 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). As a contract would not have been formed even if the alleged acceptance had been communicated to the sellers, all other issues are moot.

STONE, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 1231, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4318, 1999 WL 187359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-rourke-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack