PERSHING INDUSTRIES, INC.,
v.
STONEMOR FLORIDA SUBSIDIARY, LLC,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-02-22
No. 2021-2367
355 So. 3d 1071 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023)
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

A clear and unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its plain language, and the use of different contractual terms in different provisions implies different meanings were intended.


Headnotes

[1] The use of different terms in different provisions of a contract strongly implies that different meanings were intended by the parties.

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced pursuant to its plain language.”

Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, establishing the standard for contract interpretation

Facts & Procedural History

Pershing Industries and StoneMor Florida Subsidiary entered into a contract that contained different language in different paragraphs, creating a disp…

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.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Having carefully reviewed the language of the contract at issue under traditional rules of interpretation, Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d

983, 986 (Fla. 2015) (“Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced pursuant to its plain language.”); Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]he use of different terms in paragraphs 24 and 28 tends to indicate that a different meaning was intended. As a general proposition, the use of different language in different contractual provisions strongly implies that a different meaning was intended.”), we affirm the trial court’s well-reasoned order granting summary judgment for Appellee.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw