Legal Opinion

Lazer, N.V. v. Hollo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 26, 1983No. 82-61PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Hull v. Maryland Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1954
  2. Henry v. EckerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  4. BWB CORP. v. MuscareDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
  2. HARDING RLTY., INC. v. Turnberry Towers Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API