Stoehner Service Systems of Florida, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stoehner Service Systems of Florida, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

533 So. 2d 897, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2463, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4864, 1988 WL 117541

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1988

DocketNos. 87-1768, 87-2949

StatusPublished

This text of 533 So. 2d 897 (Stoehner Service Systems of Florida, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph 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

Stoehner Service Systems of Florida, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 533 So. 2d 897, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2463, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4864, 1988 WL 117541 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these actions and reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment against appellant on its claims for fraud and intentional interference with a contract. We believe factual issues exist as to appellee Bell South’s responsibility for its manager’s and other employees’ interference in a contract between appellant and Southern Bell. Similarly, we believe a fact issue exists as to Southern Bell’s responsibility for fraud in entering into the contract with the appellant knowing that the agent delegated to supervise the contract intended to prevent the appellant from successfully performing the contract.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these actions and reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment against appellant on its claims for fraud and intentional interference with a contract. We believe factual issues exist as to appellee Bell South’s responsibility for its manager’s and other employees’ interference in a contract between appellant and Southern Bell. Similarly, we believe a fact issue exists as to Southern Bell’s responsibility for fraud in entering into the contract with the appellant knowing that the agent delegated to supervise the contract intended to prevent the appellant from successfully performing the contract.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 So. 2d 897, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2463, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4864, 1988 WL 117541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoehner-service-systems-of-florida-inc-v-southern-bell-telephone-fladistctapp-1988.