FEDDERS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BIG FOUR INVESTMENT CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the motion to dismiss should have been denied based on the complaint and attached exhibit.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a count alleging a joint pay agreement. The defendant argued the agreement was not properly executed by them. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing with prejudice Count III of its second amended complaint against defendant Big Four Investment Corporation.
The dismissed count alleges, inter alia, that on or about January 17, 1977, the defendant Big Four Investment Corporation entered into a “joint pay agreement” with the defendant Envirko Corporation, a copy of which is attached to the complaint. The record shows that the agreement was signed by Mr. Roswell Hahn, President of Envirko Corporation and it was the intention of Mr. Hahn and Mr. Fadoul to sign the joint pay agreement on behalf of their respective corporations and that each of them further intended that their respective corporations would be jointly and severally responsible for all payments due to plaintiff for air conditioning equipment being purchased from plaintiff.
Before answer, Big Four moved to dismiss Count III on the ground that the alleged agreement which was attached to plaintiff’s complaint was not excused by the defendant, Big Four Investment Corporation, in such a place on the document that would make Big Four liable under said document; therefore, there is no agreement upon which Count III of the second amended complaint can ever state a cause of action. The trial court agreed with such contention and entered the order dismissing the count with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. It is from this order that plaintiff appeals.
We have considered the point on appeal in light of the complaint and the attached exhibit and have concluded that the motion to dismiss should have been denied. Government Employees Insurance Company v. Whellus, 319 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Flye v. Jeffords, 106 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rohatynsky v. Theo Kalogiannis, 763 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…m the complaint or attached exhibits that Marco Polo was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See A-1 Racing Specialties, Inc. v. K & S Imports of Broward County, 576 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Fedders Distrib. Corp. v. Big Four Inv. Corp., 379 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)(trial court’s dismissal of corporate defendant was premature where the defendants were jointly and severally liable on a contract and the corporate officer intended to sign on behalf of corporation). We reverse the order dismissi…
Authorities Cited
- Flye v. Mrs. D. D. Jeffords, 106 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Douglas v. State, 319 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)