DSA Group, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 88-03512
| Citation | 555 So.2d 1234,14 Fla. L. Weekly 2488 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03512,88-03512 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2488 DSA GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Lawrence GONZALEZ, individually, d/b/a 620 Madison Ltd., an unregistered limited partnership, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Diana L. Fuller and Stephen M. Armstrong of Smith & Fuller, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Dennis R. Ferguson and Henry E. Valenzuela of Stagg, Hardy & Yerrid, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
We affirm the judgment in favor of defendant in this suit for breach of a contract for payment for engineering and architectural services performed by plaintiff in connection with the development of certain real property. We cannot conclude that there was insufficient competent evidence on the basis of which the trial court could, and did, determine that defendant was not to be personally liable under the contract which plaintiff prepared and which defendant signed as purported president of a nonexistent limited partnership "or assigns." That evidence was properly admitted in this case. See Landis v. Mears, 329 So.2d 323, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (). See also Puckett v. Codisco, Inc., 440 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The facts of this case appear to contrast with those in Akel v. Dooley, 185 So.2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), in which it was held that a party who signed a contract for a nonexistent entity was personally bound under the contract. In this case the entity named in the contract for which defendant purported to sign was nonexistent. But there was also in this case testimony of defendant which could be taken to have been to the effect that it was defendant's intention, which had been communicated and agreed to by plaintiff, that the entity which was to do the development work, which did that work, which was to contract for plaintiff's services for that purpose, and on whose behalf it was intended by the parties that defendant sign the contract, was an existent corporation, not named in this suit, which had been formed shortly before the contract was executed. Thus, there was evidence which could be taken to have been to the effect that the entity on whose behalf defendant signed the contract was misdescribed, and was known by plaintiff to have been misdescribed, in the contract.
While plaintiff's evidence was strongly otherwise, we are not entitled to reweigh the evidence. Tsavaris v. NCNB...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newsweek, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of the State of Fla., 96-1882
...or laid his conclusion on proper grounds, but rather on whether his conclusion is correct or incorrect. See also DSA Group, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 555 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Whitney v. State, 184 So.2d 207, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA)(applying "doctrine that even if the wrong reasons were given [b......
-
Levine v. Levine
...that compels us to approve a correct result even if the lower court has reached it for the wrong reason. See DSA Group, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 555 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Specifically, the accountants point out that sections 607.1405(1) and 607.1421(3), Florida Statutes (1997), restrict a......
-
Summit Consulting, Inc. v. J.J. Walsh Const., Inc.
...he executed the instruments, we would not be allowed to reweigh the evidence and would, accordingly, affirm. See DSA Group, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 555 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Tsavaris v. NCNB Nat'l Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In this case, however, the court erred in admittin......
-
Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Protection and Rescue Dist.
...contends that we must affirm the lower court's decision if we can find any valid reason to support it. DSA Group, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 555 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). It then argues that the complaint failed to state a justiciable claim because obese persons are not handicapped under ......