IBRAHIM POMARES, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
J. KRANTZ ENTERPRISES, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order enforcing an option-to-purchase provision in a contract between Pomares and Krantz Enterprises for the sale of a seat cover business. The court held that the option agreement was unenforceable because it failed to specify the terms and time of payment, rendering it impermissibly vague and indefinite.
The option provision is unenforceable as impermissibly vague and indefinite because it fails to specify the terms and time of payment. Following Fox v. Sails at Laguna Club Development Corp., the omission of payment terms renders the agreement too indefinite for enforcement.
[1] An option contract is unenforceably vague and indefinite if it fails to specify the terms of payment or the time for payment.
[2] A contract provision granting an option to purchase real property is unenforceable if it lacks essential terms such as payment terms.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the option makes no "mention of the terms of payment or time for payment" of the alleged transaction, the agreement is unenforceably vague and indefinite”
The court's core holding establishing why the option provision could not be enforced, citing the controlling precedent from Fox v. Sails.
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 an agreement containing an option provision that granted Krantz or Krantz's assigns an option to purchase DeColores Seat Cove…
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 Option To Purchase cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The defendants below seek review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv)1 of an order which determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the enforcement of the following option provision:
27. Option to Purchase DeCOLORES SEAT COVERS, INC. An option to purchase the upholstery shop business known as DECOLORES SEAT COVERS, INC. and the building and land upon which it is located, legally described as Lots 89, 89A, 90 and 90A, less the East 10 feet thereof and Lot 91 of KENILWORTH REVISION, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5, at page 15 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida and also known as 250 S.W. 22nd Avenue, Miami, Florida is hereby granted to KRANTZ or KRANTZ’S assigns, as well as granting the right of first refusal to purchase said business and property located thereon, which option shall continue for a period of ten years. The option shall be the fair market value of the real property, fixed assets and inventory and if the parties hereto cannot agree on such option price, such option price shall be determined by a licenses (sic) commercial appraiser agreeable to both parties. In the event both parties cannot agree to an appraiser, then and in that event, each shall choose an appraiser who shall appraise the property and business and the fair market value thereafter shall be determined by averaging such value as the (sic) determined by said appraisers.
Because, as in Fox v. Sails at Laguna Club Development Corp., 403 So. 2d 456, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which is determinative of the present controversy, the option makes no “mention of the terms of payment or time for payment” of the alleged transaction, the agreement is unenforceably vague and indefinite. See also Vandervalk v. Brewer, 436 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1980); Lasseter v. Dauer, 211 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
. A separate order below, of which the defendants seek certiorari review, appointed an "independent appraiser” to determine the fair market value of the property in question. While the appointment seems unjustified both because the contract in question does not permit a judicial determination of "fair market value” in any circumstance and because no such appointment may be made when, as here, a party has objected, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c), our ruling on the merits has mooted the petition and it is therefore dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Platt A. Lasseter and Lora L. Lasseter v. Maxwell Dauer, 211 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Emilio FOX and Frances Fox v. The Sails AT Laguna Club Dev. Corp., 403 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hezekiah Mack v. State, 436 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)