Serge v. Dreher

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Serge v. Dreher

474 So. 2d 846, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17474

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1783

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 474 So. 2d 846 (Serge v. Dreher) 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

Serge v. Dreher, 474 So. 2d 846, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17474 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to appel-lees on their claims for breach of contract and fraud.

We reverse the award of damages to Emil Palik in all respects because it is undisputed on the record that Palik had no contractual or other relations with appellants. In addition, because we find no evi-dentiary support for the punitive damages awards or the awards of compensatory damages for fraud, we reverse all such awards. However, we find sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that a breach of contract occurred and affirm the awards for compensatory damages for breach of contract for all appellees except Palik. We also find that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence but find such error to be harmless in view of the other evidence presented at trial.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand with directions that judgment be entered in accord with this opinion.

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to appel-lees on their claims for breach of contract and fraud.

We reverse the award of damages to Emil Palik in all respects because it is undisputed on the record that Palik had no contractual or other relations with appellants. In addition, because we find no evi-dentiary support for the punitive damages awards or the awards of compensatory damages for fraud, we reverse all such awards. However, we find sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that a breach of contract occurred and affirm the awards for compensatory damages for breach of contract for all appellees except Palik. We also find that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence but find such error to be harmless in view of the other evidence presented at trial.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand with directions that judgment be entered in accord with this opinion.

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 846, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serge-v-dreher-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack