Retail Planning Holding Corp. v. Thrasher

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Retail Planning Holding Corp. v. Thrasher

590 So. 2d 1041, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13241, 1991 WL 265079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1991

DocketNo. 91-811

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 1041 (Retail Planning Holding Corp. v. Thrasher) 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

Retail Planning Holding Corp. v. Thrasher, 590 So. 2d 1041, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13241, 1991 WL 265079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants appeal an order dismissing Count IV of their amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action against appellee Elwin R. Thrasher, Jr. We find that appellants’ amended complaint contains sufficient allegations of both an agreement between the parties, which created in appellee Thrasher a limited duty, and breach of that agreement and duty. If proven, those allegations can establish a sufficient predicate for relief. See Williams v. Hunt Brothers Construction, Inc., 475 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Therefore, Count IV of appellants’ amended complaint is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

REVERSED and REMANDED for reinstatement of Count IV of appellants’ amended complaint.

WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants appeal an order dismissing Count IV of their amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action against appellee Elwin R. Thrasher, Jr. We find that appellants’ amended complaint contains sufficient allegations of both an agreement between the parties, which created in appellee Thrasher a limited duty, and breach of that agreement and duty. If proven, those allegations can establish a sufficient predicate for relief. See Williams v. Hunt Brothers Construction, Inc., 475 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Therefore, Count IV of appellants’ amended complaint is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

REVERSED and REMANDED for reinstatement of Count IV of appellants’ amended complaint.

WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 1041, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13241, 1991 WL 265079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/retail-planning-holding-corp-v-thrasher-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack