DELTA BRANDS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HESCO SALES, INC., 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.
Delta Brands appealed from a trial court order enforcing a settlement agreement in a breach of contract action involving the sale of a steel cutting machine. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's findings that Delta Brands breached and repudiated the settlement agreement and that the trial court's remedy of specific enforcement was appropriate.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings that Delta Brands breached the settlement agreement by repudiating it, that Hesco Sales committed no material breach, and that Hesco Sales had the ability to perform. The court also held that the trial court's remedy of specific enforcement was entirely appropriate under established law.
[1] A settlement agreement may be specifically enforced when one party materially breaches it by repudiation and the other party is ready, willing, and able to perform.
[2] Substantial, competent evidence supports a trial court's findings of fact regarding breach of a settlement agreement.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there was substantial, competent evidence presented below to support the trial court's findings that (a) the appellant Delta Brands, Inc. breached the settlement agreement, by specifically repudiating it, (b) the appellee Hesco Sales, Inc. committed no material breach of the settlement agreement, and (c) Hesco Sales, Inc. had the ability to perform its obligations under the settlement agreement”
Establishes the evidentiary basis for affirming the trial court's factual findings regarding breach and performance ability
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a settlement agreement concerning the sale of a steel cutting machine. Delta Brands breached the settlement agreement by repu…
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 Breach Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order enforcing a settlement agreement in a breach of contract action involving the sale of a steel cutting machine. We affirm.
Extensive briefs have been filed by the parties and numerous points on appeal have been raised by the appellant Delta Brands, Inc. Without analyzing these points in any depth, suffice it to say that there was substantial, competent evidence presented below to support the trial court’s findings that (a) the appellant Delta Brands, Inc. breached the settlement agreement, by specifically repudiating it, (b) the appellee Hesco Sales, Inc. committed no material breach of the settlement agreement, and (c) Hesco Sales, Inc. had the ability to perform.its obligations under the settlement agreement when the appellant Delta Brands, Inc. repudiated the said agreement. We have not overlooked the appellant’s extensive arguments to the contrary, but do not find them persuasive. Moreover, we conclude that the remedy fashioned by the trial court to specifically enforce the settlement agreement herein was entirely appropriate in this cause under the established law; we reject appellant’s extensive arguments to the contrary. See Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985); Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), appeal dismissed, 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1976); Mangus v. Porter, 276 So. 2d 250, 251 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 279 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1973); Hogan v. Norfleet, 113 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), aff'd, 143 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1962).
Based on the foregoing reasons, the final order under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orchid Island Props., Inc. v. W.G. Mills, 889 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…al involving an order denying a motion to enforce a stipulation for settlement); Metro. Dade County v. Edol Corp., 661 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Delta Brands, Inc. v. [*144] Hesco Sales, Inc., 500 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). For example, in Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we considered an appeal from an order enforcing a settlement agreement against a plaintiff; the order directed the plaintiff to make a paymen…
Authorities Cited
- Robbie v. City OF Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985)
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Mangus v. Porter, 276 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- McDONALD v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 113 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Hogan v. Norfleet, 113 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Baillie v. Town OF Medley, 279 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1973)
- Nathey v. State, 279 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1973)
- Hogan v. Norfleet, 143 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- McGINNIS v. Charles L. Painter et ux., 143 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)