Legal Opinion

Lefemine v. Baron

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 24, 1990No. 88-1384PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LETTS, Judge.

The question now before this court is whether the default provision in a real estate contract, calling for retention of the deposit by the seller, was enforceable as liquidated damages or was an unenforceable penalty clause. The trial court upheld the provision as one for liquidated damages. We affirm.

*1161The default provision contained the following language:

DEFAULT:

1. DEFAULT BY BUYER: If buyer fails to perform the Contract within the time specified, the deposit(s) made or agreed to be made by Buyer may be retained or recovered by or for the account of Seller as liquidated damages,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hutchison v. TompkinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1972
  2. Ocean Dunes of Hutchinson v. ColangeloDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  3. Bruce Builders, Inc. v. GoodwinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  4. Hooper v. BrenemanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  5. Cortes v. AdairDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lefemine v. BaronSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
  2. Idevco, Inc. v. HobaughDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API