MOHAMMED FARUK v. MADISON ACQUISITIONS CORP. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 24, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-0073
    Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-0324 AP, 19-8673 CC
    ________________
    Mohammed Faruk,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Madison Acquisitions Corp.,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina
    Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
    Shlomo Y. Hecht, P.A., and Shlomo Y. Hecht (Miramar), for appellant.
    Legon Fodiman, P.A., and Todd A. Fodiman, and Todd R. Legon and
    Clayton D. Hackney, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Affirmed. See De Cespedes v. Bolanos, 
    711 So. 2d 216
    , 218 (Fla. 3d
    DCA 1998) (“The absence of a general time of performance, however, is not
    fatal to the enforceability of this contract. ‘The general Florida rule is that
    when a contract does not expressly fix the time for performance of its terms,
    the law will imply a reasonable time.’”); Indep. Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Deater,
    
    814 So. 2d 1224
    , 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Simply because a contract is
    unclear as to when payment must be made does not relieve a party of an
    obligation to make payment. Where an agreement does not specify the time
    for payment or provides for an indeterminate or indefinite time, the law
    implies that payment will be made within a reasonable time.”); cf. Vision Palm
    Springs, LLLP v. Michael Anthony Co., 
    272 So. 3d 441
    , 446-7 (Fla. 3d DCA
    2019) (“Here, no settlement was finalized prior to Vision withdrawing its
    consent. While the parties engaged in preliminary negotiations, there was no
    enforceable settlement agreement because there was no assent by all of the
    parties to an agreement that was sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable
    as to every essential element. Coscan’s counsel maintained throughout the
    negotiations that the insurance carrier would need to sign off before any
    agreement could be finalized. Thus, Coscan did not agree to the last of the
    proposed changes to the Second Revised Agreement prior to Vision
    2
    revoking its agreement to settle because the carrier still had not given its
    approval.”).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0073

Filed Date: 2/24/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/24/2021