Shore Inv. Co. v. Hotel Trinidad
| Decision Date | 01 April 1947 |
| Citation | 29 So.2d 696,158 Fla. 682 |
| Parties | SHORE INV. CO. v. HOTEL TRINIDAD, Inc. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Thomas H Anderson, of Miami, and Herbert L. Nadeau, of Jacksonville for petitioner.
Meyer Weiss & Rosen, of Miami Beach, for respondent.
Shore Investment Company executed a ninety-nine year lease to Hotel Trinidad Inc., describing certain real property in Miami Beach. The lease authorized respondent to demolish the buildings on the premises for the purpose of erecting apartment or hotel buildings thereon, the latter to be completed within six months from the commencement of demolition. Prior to demolition the lessee was required to execute a good and valid contract in favor of the lessor to erect the apartment or hotel building. The lessee demolished the old buildings without making this contract and the new structures have never been started.
Petitioner instituted an action at law to regain possession of the premises, based on violation of the lease. Respondent countered with a suit in equity alleging that the violation of its contract resulted from inability to secure permit from the Civilian Production Authority to secure necessary materials. Injunction was issued restraining petitioner from prosecuting the suit at law. We are confronted with certiorari to review to the latter decree.
The question for determination is whether or not the chancellor committed error in restraining further prosecution of the action to recover possession of the leased premises.
We think that this question must be answered in the affirmative. By the terms of the lease the leasee had the option to erect the hotel or apartment, it was not required that he do so. If attempted the hotel or apartments must be completed within six months from date of starting demolition and contract for their construction was required to be with a responsible contractor prior to commencement of demolition. None of these provisions were complied with and in fact was not attempted till after domolition.
Respondent plants its defense primarily on the theory that his failure to perform resulted from refusal of the Civilian Production Authority, a governmental agency, to grant the necessary permit for materials to erect the hotel or apartment building.
We do not think such a defense was available to him. Knowledge of the situation was well known or could have been known by casual inquiry and the dominant rule seems...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvey v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, LLC
...bargain. Ultimately the issue is whether the change was foreseeable. This is the rule in Florida. See Shore Investment Co. v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696 (1947); 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 213 In the case before us it is certainly clear that the regulation of dredge and ......
-
Cook v. Deltona Corp.
...bargain. Ultimately the issue is whether the change was foreseeable. This is the rule in Florida. See Shore Investment Co. v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696 (1947); 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts Sec. 213 In the case before us it is certainly clear that the regulation of dredge a......
-
Fischler v. Nicklin
...the unpaid balance. This view is sustained by the very recent decision of the supreme court of Florida in Shore Investment Co. v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696, 697: '* * * Knowledge of the situation was well known or could have been known by casual inquiry and the domina......
-
Malkus v. Gaines, s. 82-486
...7 was to secure the warranties (which he knew at the time he signed the agreement were false). Shore Investment Company v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696 (1947); Fulton v. Clewiston Company, Inc., 100 Fla. 257, 129 So. 773 (1930); Hill v. Lummus, 123 So.2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA......