Summary
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an aircraft sale contract’s limitation of the buyer’s remedies to reimbursement of inspection costs was enforceable and not illusory. The court reversed the circuit court’s partial summary judgment for the buyer and directed entry of summary judgment for the seller, subject to payment of inspection costs and return of the buyer’s deposit. The court affirmed the order vacating the jury’s lost-profits verdict and ordering a new trial based on discovery violations.
Holdings
- The remedy limitation was not illusory because the contract imposed genuine obligations on both parties and reasonably limited the buyer's remedy to reimbursement of inspection costs.
- The order vacating the jury's lost-profits verdict and ordering a new trial on damages was affirmed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the contract's provision limiting the buyer's remedies for the seller's default to reimbursement of inspection costs was illusory and unenforceable.
- Whether the circuit court properly vacated the jury's lost-profits verdict and ordered a new trial based on the buyer's counsel's discovery violations.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (6)
- Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(followed)
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)(followed)
- Ocean Dunes of Hutchinson Island Dev. Corp. v. Colangelo, 463 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(distinguished)
- Inlet Beach Cap. Invs., LLC v. F.D.I.C., 778 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2014)(followed by analogy)
- Ament v. One Las Olas, Ltd., 898 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(followed)
- Jet Sales of Stuart, LLC v. Jet Connection Travel, GmbH, No. 06-80039-CIV, 2006 WL 8435439 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2006)(persuasive)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…