HomeMy WebLinkAbout0261 Apparently some agreement was reached becaus~ on September 14,
i970, Brereton gave to Per.ona his check f~r $25,000.00, an~ shortly
thereafter both parties moved to Fort Pierce arid the purchase of
Tague O1dGmobile by Peron~ was closed. Thereafter the business was
knov~rn as Ken Ferona Oldsmobile, with the Plaintiff, Robert F. :3rereton
acting ag~general manager until his withdrawal from the business in
November of 1972.
In addition to the $25,000.00 initially put up by Brereton,
he deposited an additional $1,650.00 on March 23, 1971. According to
Brereton, this was an additional capital investment by him in the
partnership which he made a~ the request of Perona. According to
Perona, this $1,650.00 was unsolicited and he doesn't know why Brereton
paid this money. After Brereton's withdrawal from active participation
inthe business, he requested and received the $26,650.00 he had paid to
Perona. In addition he received a net check in the amount of $4,476.86
($5,000.00 less lease car rental of $220.40 and less hospitalization
' of $302.75) and also a 1973 OldsmobilE Automobile. ~
~ ~
The issue upon which this case turns is ~ne of fact. What
were the terms of the agreement between Perona and Brereton under which
Brerei:on advanced $25,000.00 and moved to Florida to become the general
~anager of Ken Perona Ol~~mobile? TAas Brereton ta b~ a p~~~~nt partner
as contended by him, or was it to be a future partnership conditional upon
Brereton performing successfully as geaeral manager for five years, as
contended by Perona.
~ As reviousl stated there is a direct conflict between the
P Y
testimony of Brereton and Perona as to the terms of their agreement.
~ Each has presented other test~.mony and evidence which tends to support
~
tt~eir version of the agreement. ~
On the one hand Brereton has shown that on several occasions
Perona in conversation with other persons referred to Brereton as his
#
~ ' ' ' 3~
- 3 - ~Jl r,~~;~ 2~J~ ~
- -
- - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _