Case ID: so2d_545/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. Frederick BLITSTEIN and Blitstein Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. INTERVISA CORPORATION, Trustee on Behalf of BONEFISH YACHT CLUB, LTD., and Intervisa Corporation, Appellees.
    No. 88-785.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 18, 1989.
    Rehearing Denied July 5, 1989.
    Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England and Gary S. Brooks and Jorge L. Guerra, Miami, for appellants.
    Steven E. M. Hartz, Miami, for appellees.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., BARKDULL, J., and JAMES C. DAUKSCH, Jr., Associate Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

It is well settled that one may not simultaneously repudiate a contract for conducting a business venture — here, by recovering compensatory damages in the amount of the sum invested and punitive damages based on fraudulent inducement — and also secure the recovery of lost profits which presupposes the continued existence of the agreement. Noord v. Katz, 481 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc., 288 So.2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 416 (Fla.1974); Hauser v. Van Zile, 269 So.2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In accordance with this principle, the judgment under review is reduced by the $200,000 found by the jury to be recoverable for lost profits. Since we find no other error, the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.