HomeMy WebLinkAbout1358 ~ ~
-Furthermore the lots in question, if and when they are rented,
only fetch about $450 a month. There is simply no way that
such _an arranQement__could____be_ .said to_ effec-tively restrain the _
real estate brokerage profession from exercising -
its chosen-role in this business community, notwithstanding that
it stifles their efforts on'this particular site. - -
We are aware that the wording employed in these -
restraint of trade situations and in the Florida statute3 is
amorphous to say the least. Technically, any exclusive arrange-
. went in a contract is in .restraint of trade. However, much
- more than that is required, for it must be shown that the
restraint is unreasonable, detrimental to the public welfare
and obnoxious to public policy. Lee v. Clearwater Growers'
P.ss'n, 111 So. 722 (Fla. 1927). We cannot sustain
any such showing from the record in this case. •
Finally we note that the'Florida Supreme Court has
recently ruled that exclusive 99 year recreational leases -
are not in restraint of trade. Avila South Condominium Ass.'n,
~ Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1976); also
see Point. East One Condominium v. Point East,Etc., 348 So.2d 32
(Fla., 3d DCA 1977). There is no doubt that the mechanics of
a recreational lease differ from an exclusive rental agree- -
ment. However the bottom line is similar, in that both pro-
vide the developer of a condominiua: site with long term large
profit at the expense of individual unit owners.4
~ REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF J 4~6~~
ACCORDANCE HEREVlITH . _ ` • V
- ~fE829
F EQ ~KC MECCKt?tU. .
S~luc1 R
p01TRA5A
DOWNEY, C . J . and HOORE , J . , concur . Ct~iC~1 j _
3. ~ 542.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1977).
4. But see Silver v. Pbbot Realty, Inc., 249 So.2d 38
(Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
_ 4 _ BOOK Pj6f~t~ -
-