Vival, Inc. v. Syracuse Plastics of North Carolina, Inc.

604 So. 2d 1, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7722
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 30, 1992
DocketNos. 91-2136, 91-1205
StatusPublished

This text of 604 So. 2d 1 (Vival, Inc. v. Syracuse Plastics of North Carolina, Inc.) 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
Vival, Inc. v. Syracuse Plastics of North Carolina, Inc., 604 So. 2d 1, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Of the numerous points raised on appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment rendered after a non-jury trial in a commercial law case, we find merit only in the claim that the trial court erred in failing to grant sanctions to Valdez because of Syracuse’s rejection of an offer of judgment made pursuant to section 45.061, Florida Statutes (1991). See Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Memorial Sales, Inc. v. Pike, 579 So.2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The cause is remanded solely for the purpose of determining the amount to be assessed. Otherwise, there is no error affecting the substantial rights of the parties.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

Related

Lennar Corporation v. Muskat
595 So. 2d 968 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Memorial Sales, Inc. v. Pike
579 So. 2d 778 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 So. 2d 1, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vival-inc-v-syracuse-plastics-of-north-carolina-inc-fladistctapp-1992.