Pinon v. International Harvester Co.

390 So. 2d 154
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 18, 1980
Docket80-105
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 390 So. 2d 154 (Pinon v. International Harvester Co.) 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
Pinon v. International Harvester Co., 390 So. 2d 154 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

390 So.2d 154 (1980)

Roberto PINON and Jacqueline Pinon, Appellants,
v.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.

No. 80-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 18, 1980.

Carl M. Lambert, Miami, for appellants.

Smathers & Thompson and Douglas L. Oppenheimer, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks damages from appellee by demonstrating an agency relationship between appellee and the car dealership from which she purchased her used vehicle. She appeals from an adverse summary judgment on that issue. We affirm.

Appellee's contract with the offending dealership as a franchise agreement, and the elements of agency are not found within its four corners; injured third persons, arguably including appellant sub judice, may nonetheless assert such a relationship based on estoppel, apparent authority, or ratification. However, absent here is the principal's prior or subsequent representation, either express or by implication, that the dealership acted as its agent; it is appellant's burden to demonstrate such representation, Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied 336 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1976); she was unable to allege facts bringing appellee's status to issue: Summary judgment was properly entered.

Affirmed.

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

Related

In re Hardieplank Fiber Cement Siding Litig.
284 F. Supp. 3d 918 (D. Maine, 2018)
Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc.
641 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (M.D. Florida, 2009)
Orlinsky v. Patraka
971 So. 2d 796 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Glaser
732 So. 2d 1124 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Chase Manhattan v. SCOTT, ROYCE
694 So. 2d 827 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Kobel v. Schlosser
614 So. 2d 6 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Public Insurance Consultant, Inc. v. Peninsular Fire Insurance Co.
441 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 So. 2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinon-v-international-harvester-co-fladistctapp-1980.