Peters v. Bower
| Decision Date | 27 February 1953 |
| Citation | 63 So.2d 629 |
| Parties | PETERS et al. v. BOWER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Franks & Gordon and H. H. Eyles, Miami, for appellants.
Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellees.
So far as pertinent the amended complaint initiating this case alleges that Herman Bower, the owner of certain real estate southwest of Miami, known as Sunkist Estates Subdivision, presented a plat of said lands to the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County. In affidavit Bower proposed to the County Commissioners that if they would approve the plat he would grade, rock and pave the streets indicated thereon and oil them when the government will permit. The complaint filed by co-appellants who are purchasers of lots in the subdivision prayed that Herman Bower be compelled to comply with said contract. The complaint was dismissed and this appeal was prosecuted.
The real point on which the controversy turns is whether or not the complaint states facts sufficient to show a contract or to activate the statute for declaratory decree.
The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the second paragraph of the affidavit submitted with the request to approve the plat, as follows:
'A plat entitled,
The quoted provision states nothing more than an 'intention' on the part of Herman Bower to grade the streets shown on the plat and rock and pave them in accordance with the Dade County specification 'on or before two years after date.' There are other provisions of the affidavit that contribute to the 'intention' but considered in toto we do not think it amounted to an enforceable contract. The elements of such a contract were not present and it was not sufficient to activate the Declaratory Judgments Act. Scott v. S. H. Kress & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 714; Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 157 Fla. 27, 24 So.2d 808.
The decree appealed from is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National By-Products, Inc. v. United States
...the traditional sense. For a recognition of the general principle, see Cabaud v. Federal Ins. Co., 37 F.2d 23 (C.A. 2 1930); Peters v. Bower, 63 So.2d 629 (Fla.1953); Harper v. Kennedy, 15 Ill. 2d 46, 153 N.E.2d 801, 805 (1958); Phoenix Spring Beverage Co. v. Harvard Brewing Co., 312 Mass. ......
-
Beckworth v. Bizier
...that expressions of desire, hope or a promise to enter into a future contract are not the basis for such a claim. See Peters v. Bower, 63 So. 2d 629, 629 (Fla. 1953) (provision that states an "intention" ofperformance "on or before two years after date" does not amount to an enforceable con......
-
Cohen v. Amerifirst Bank
...1965). Statements of future intentions, or an agreement to agree in the future, do not give rise to an enforceable contract. Peters v. Bower, 63 So.2d 629 (Fla.1953); Brown v. Dobry, 311 So.2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Beverage Dist. Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 440 F.2d 21 (9th Cir.1971); Bo......
-
Pappas v. Hauser
...Pont De Nemours & Co. v. ClaiborneReno Co., 64 F.2d 224 (8th Cir.) ('intention' used in contractual sense--business setting); Peters v. Bower, 63 So.2d 629 (Fla.) (not contractual under the circumstances); Phoenix Spring Beverage Co. v. Harvard Brewing Co., 312 Mass. 501, 45 N.E.2d 473; Oak......