Case ID: so2d_602/html/0967-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. LETTS, Judge, ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPAREL AFFILIATES, INC., and Larry Bischoff, Appellants, v. Norman COREN, Appellee.
    No. 91-1501.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 17, 1992.
    Lewis R. Cohen of Scharlin, Lanzetta and Cohen, Miami, for appellants.
    Claudia Jo Willis and Andrew T. Lavin of Romanik and Lavin, Hollywood, for appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, J., concurs.

LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

LETTS, Judge,

specially concurring.

I specially concur only to record the reason why I do not agree with Judge An-stead’s partial dissent. As I read the written agreement in this case, the commission was based on a “net agreed selling price (includ[ing] labor, cutting, duty and transportation).” Under the facts, I believe the words “transportation” and “freight” to be synonymous.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting in part.

The trial court awarded appellee damages for breach of contract. I dissent only to the extent that I believe the evidence fails to sustain the trial court’s inclusion of certain freight charges used as a predicate for computing appellee’s sales commission. I would remand with directions that the damages be reduced accordingly. In all other respects I concur in the affirmance.