Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, Pa, 493 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, Pa, 493 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it appears without material dispute that the purpose for which the subject contract was formed became entirely frustrated under the circumstances of this case due to no fault of either party.”
7 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 1700 RINEHART, LLC v. Advance America (fladistctapp, 2010-12-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) 1700 RINEHART, LLC v. Advance America
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
it appears without material dispute that the purpose for which the subject contract was formed became entirely frustrated under the circumstances of this case due to no fault of either party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mailloux v. Briella Townhomes, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Aviation, Inc. v. Aero-Flight Serv., Inc., 712 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (explaining that impossibility of performance can provide a defense to nonperformance of a contract where facts making performance impossible were not available to promisor prior to execution of contract); Equitrac Corp. v. Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour, P.A., 493 So.2d 548, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (noting that doctrine of frustration of purpose can render a contract unenforceable).
discussed Cited "see" Cinemex USA Real Estate Holdings, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement (ECF #586-1) 11 See Declaration of Jose Leonardo Marti (ECF #380). 12 Equitrac Corp, 493 So. 2d 548 . purpose includes impracticability due to unreasonable expense, says no such thing.
EQUITRAC CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
KENNY, NACHWALTER & SEYMOUR, P.A., Appellee.
85-2746.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sep 9, 1986.
493 So. 2d 548
Hubbart, Baskin, and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

DeMeo & Sherman, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Murai, Wald, Biondo, Matthews & Moreno and Cristina L. Mendoza, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN, and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

REVISED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment in favor of the defendant in this breach of contract action is affirmed. It appears without material dispute that the purpose for which the subject contract was formed became entirely frustrated under the circumstances of this case due to no fault of either party. This showing, in our view, rendered the contract unenforceable based on the contract doctrine of frustration of purpose. See Crown Ice Machine Leasing Co. v. Sam Senter Farms, Inc., 174 So.2d 614, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 180 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1965); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 266(2) (1981).

Affirmed.