From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Paxson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 17, 1994
641 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 94-162.

July 22, 1994. Rehearing Denied August 17, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County; Rom W. Powell, Judge.

Kenneth Friedland of Holland, Starling, Severs, Stadler Friedland, P.A., Titusville, for appellant.

John W. Caven, Jr., and Charles B. Bennett, Jr., of Caven, Clark, Ray Tucker, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellees.


AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially and dissents, with opinion.


I concur in the affirmance of dismissal of count III of the complaint alleging fraud in the inducement to enter into the oral, multiyear employment agreement. Appellees' argument that the economic loss rule bars the fraudulent inducement claim is specious; nevertheless, it is clear that, under Florida law, appellant has no enforceable claim. Given the lower court's error in relying on appellees' "economic loss" argument, appellant should perhaps have an opportunity to amend, but given my conclusion, based on the facts already sworn to by appellant, that amendment would be futile, I concur in the dismissal of appellee, Wesley C. Paxson, Sr.

We have no jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Count II against Paxson Electric Company since Count I is still pending against that defendant.


Summaries of

Lee v. Paxson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 17, 1994
641 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Lee v. Paxson

Case Details

Full title:DONALD E. LEE, APPELLANT, v. WESLEY C. PAXSON, SR., AND PAXSON ELECTRIC…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 17, 1994

Citations

641 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)