Fendrich v. RBF, LLC
Decision Date | 30 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 4D02-2203.,4D02-2203. |
Citation | 842 So.2d 1076 |
Parties | Laurence E. FENDRICH, Appellant, v. RBF, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stanford R. Solomon and Hallie S. Evans of The Solomon Tropp Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Scott B. Newman of Holland & Knight LLP, West Palm Beach and Daniel S. Pearson and Ilene S. Pabian of Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, for appellee.
We withdraw our opinion filed on March 19, 2003 and substitute the following opinion.
Defendant appellee, a developer, signed a reservation form purporting to give the appellant plaintiff the right to subsequently enter into a contract to purchase a home on a specified lot at a firm price. Plaintiff alleges that when defendant tendered the purchase contract, it was for a less desirable lot and at a higher price. We conclude that these allegations state a cause of action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The reservation form, entitled "Residence Homes at Eagle Tree Reservation Agreement," specifically referring to Lot 10A, contained the following relevant provisions:
When the time came to execute the purchase agreement, about five months later, the defendant offered a contract for Lot 2C, not 10A, for a purchase price of $1,495,000, not $1,200,000. Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit seeking specific performance, damages for breach of contract, and damages for violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
Plaintiff's theories of recovery of damages for breach of contract or specific performance are grounded on the argument that this was an enforceable option agreement. An option to purchase land, however, is irrevocable by the seller until expiration of a time limit. Goodman v. Goodman, 290 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Because paragraph 4 allows either party to terminate at any time, this is not a valid option agreement, and the trial court was correct in dismissing the claims for specific performance and damages. It does not follow, however, that there cannot be a cause of action for deceptive trade practices under FDUTPA.
Section 501.204, Florida Statutes (2002) provides:
(1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
Trade or commerce is defined in section 501.203(8):
"Trade or commerce" means the advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property, whether tangible or intangible, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated. "Trade or commerce" shall include the conduct of any trade or commerce, however denominated, including any nonprofit or not-for-profit person or activity.
Florida courts, in construing Chapter 501, are guided by federal decisions interpreting the Federal Trade Commission Act. § 501.204(2). A deceptive practice, under federal decisions, is one which is "likely to mislead consumers." Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) and cases cited.
The reservation form states that "Purchaser hereby reserves the right to purchase the aforedescribed Residence Home(s), in the Residence Home at Eagle Tree Community of the Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa ..." for a specific price ($1,200,000) and Seller "assures Purchaser that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd.
...one that is "likely to mislead." Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971, 974 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000); see also Fendrich v. RBF, L.L.C., 842 So.2d 1076, 1079 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.2003). An unfair practice is "one that offends established public policy" and is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, uns......
-
MRA Prop. Mgmt. Inc. v. Armstrong
...1272-74 (S.D.Fla.2005); Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So.2d 274, 277-78 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004); Fendrich v. RBF, L.L.C., 842 So.2d 1076, 1079-80, n.2. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)); Klotz v. Underwood, 563 F.Supp 335, 338-9 (E.D. Tenn. 1982), aff'd without op. 709 F.2d 1504 (......
-
Hicks v. Eller
...to buy a more expensive one instead. Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1230 (10th Cir.2007); Fendrich v. RBF, L.L.C., 842 So.2d 1076, 1079 n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003). The tactic is a selling tactic. Hicks directs us to no cases in which a court determined that a “bait and switch” h......
-
Hicks v. Eller
...to buy a more expensive one instead. Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1230 (10th Cir. 2007); Fendrich v. RBF, L.L.C., 842 So. 2d 1076, 1079 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). The tactic is a selling tactic. Hicks directs us to no cases in which a court determined that a "bait and swit......