HomeMy WebLinkAbout1789 ~ ~
ii~
i
~ t
483418 ~
n~ TES ~ JUDICIAL cII~(.UIT
CF FIARIOA, IN AND FOR ST. I~7CIE
CXXN'i'Y.
CASE N0. 79-387-CA
~ ` F. Nf~BEZtTS, JR. , ) ~
~i
Flaintiff , ) i
i
us ) 1
i
BLTi'Y E. DAIGLE, ) i
Defendant. )
i
r
i i
I
FIl~AI, JL)DC~NP ~ ~
4hi.s cause"having been tried on the 12th day of March, 1980, ~ `
before the Honorable Philip G. Nourse, Circuit Court Judge of the
f
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida i.n and for St. Iucie Oc~unty, I
Florida; upon Plaintiff's C~laint for Specific Pierfornianoe and the
responsive pleadixigs thereto; upon the evidence presented and after
hearing aYyunent of ornmsel; and the Court being fully advised in the
premises it is:
C
AND ADJUDGEfl as follows:
1. mat according to the stipulation of the parties, the
i
Contract introduced herein as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, is a correct
and authentic Dopy of that certain real estate sales contract entered ~
into betw~.n Plaintiff and Defendant on or about May 21, 1979, for the
sale of real estate located at 180 North Timison Street, Port St. Iucie,
. ~
t
St. Iucie County, Florida and more particularly described as follows:
Int 7, Block 76, R1VEIt PARK UNIT 9, PART A, _
according to the Plat thereof, as rewrded
in Plat Book 14, page 31, of the Public
Revords of St. Lucie Cotmty, Florida.
2. The Court finds that said written Qor~tract was validly
executed and signed by the party to be charged and that said Contract is
clear and ~iguous on its face and, therefore, parol evidence cannot
be eonsi.dered tD expla5.n or vary its ternls (See Black vs. Clifton, _ !
284 So 2d 465 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1973); and the Oourt finds that no agency
relationship existed between Plaintiff and the real estate brokers who
were to be paid by the Defendant from the disbursements of the proceeds
of sale, according to t~ terms of the Contract.
mK3~ PAGE' W j ~
1