Lazer, N.V. v. Hollo
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
NESBITT, Judge.
The final summary judgment in favor of the defendants to this contract action is affirmed upon a holding that in light of the undisputed facts and the terms of the parties’ agreement the contingency to a payment of $250,000 to the plaintiff did not transpire.
The plaintiff, Lazer, N.V., sold the defendants a shopping center for $1,250,000. As is pertinent to this appeal, their purchase and sale agreement recited:
3. It is further understood and agreed that in the event the Company shall sell, transfer, or convey its fee simply [sic] title to the property commonly known as Royal…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hull v. Maryland Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1954
- Henry v. EckerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- BWB CORP. v. MuscareDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- HARDING RLTY., INC. v. Turnberry Towers Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986