RCA Investments, Inc. v. Amerivend

District Court of Appeal of Florida

RCA Investments, Inc. v. Amerivend

581 So. 2d 618, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5082, 1991 WL 92382

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1991

DocketNo. 91-14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 618 (RCA Investments, Inc. v. Amerivend) 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

RCA Investments, Inc. v. Amerivend, 581 So. 2d 618, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5082, 1991 WL 92382 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, RCA Investments, Inc., Roy C. Anderson, Joyce Delisser, and Fitzroy Delisser, appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Amerivend, Corp., Wash Bowl, Inc., and Maytag Corporation. We reverse.

Summary judgment is proper only where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.510(c). Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Newport Seafood, Inc. v. Neptune Trading Corp., 555 So.2d 376 (Fla.3d DCA 1989).

We find that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding: (1) whether ap-pellees made representations to appellants which would constitute a guaranty of income; (2) whether appellees provided appellants with a marketing plan; and (3) whether Amerivend was the agent of Maytag Corporation.

[619]*619Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the determination of these issues of material fact.

Reversed.

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