You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Commercial Air Transport Sales Corp. v. Lundberg

Citations: 398 So. 2d 492; 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19863Docket: No. 80-1822

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 19, 1981; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The trial judge's summary judgment was affirmed, confirming that the appellees were entitled to the return of their deposit for an aircraft purchase based on the clear terms of the agreement. Relevant case law supporting this decision includes World Jet-Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Allied International Ltd., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Warren Bros. Co., Font v. Lazarus Homes Corp., and Second National Bank of Clearwater v. Westlake Development Corp.

Legal Issues Addressed

Interpretation of Contractual Terms

Application: The court interpreted the contractual terms as clear and unambiguous, entitling the appellees to the return of their deposit.

Reasoning: The trial judge's summary judgment was affirmed, confirming that the appellees were entitled to the return of their deposit for an aircraft purchase based on the clear terms of the agreement.

Precedent in Contractual Disputes

Application: The decision was supported by precedent, referencing similar rulings in cases such as World Jet-Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Allied International Ltd. and others.

Reasoning: Relevant case law supporting this decision includes World Jet-Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Allied International Ltd., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Warren Bros. Co., Font v. Lazarus Homes Corp., and Second National Bank of Clearwater v. Westlake Development Corp.

Summary Judgment Affirmation

Application: The trial judge's decision to grant summary judgment was upheld, confirming the appellees' right to recover their deposit based on the agreement's clear terms.

Reasoning: The trial judge's summary judgment was affirmed, confirming that the appellees were entitled to the return of their deposit for an aircraft purchase based on the clear terms of the agreement.