Orlando Realty Bd. Bldg. Corp. v. Hilpert, (1927)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 13
Judges: ELLIS, C. J. —
Attorneys: Dickinson Dickinson and Giles Gurney, for Appellant.
Massey, Warlow Carpenter, for Appellees.
Filed: May 02, 1927
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 956 This is an appeal from a decree canceling an option for the sale of land and refusing the appellant, who was cross-complainant below, the relief of specific performance. It is well settled that the enforcement of a specific execution of a contract is not a matter of right in either party but that it is a matter of sound discretion in the Court and should
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 956 This is an appeal from a decree canceling an option for the sale of land and refusing the appellant, who was cross-complainant below, the relief of specific performance. It is well settled that the enforcement of a specific execution of a contract is not a matter of right in either party but that it is a matter of sound discretion in the Court and should b..
More
In addition to the cogent reasoning of the Chief Justice in the foregoing opinion, it appears to me that if it should be conceded for the sake of argument that the option gave Mr. Rose the exclusive right to select either the full 50 feet or any part thereof over 30 ft., he must necessarily have indicated such selection at the time he attempted to accept or exercise the option. This he did not do. Hence the option was never clearly and definitely accepted within the time limited and no contract resulted.
Source: CourtListener
