Case ID: so2d_407/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM. FERGUSON, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RHITA B. BEHRMAN INTERIORS, INC., and Rhita B. Behrman, individually, Appellants, v. BRAMAN CADILLAC, INC., Appellee.
    No. 81-1066.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 8, 1981.
    Thomas H. Connors, Miami, for appellants.
    Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Li-poff, Quentel & Wolff and Ronald B. Ravi-koff, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the correctness of a judgment on the pleadings rendered in favor of the appellee in an action for an alleged breach of contract to give a free 1980 Toyota with each purchase of a new 1979 Cadillac or a demonstrator pursuant to an advertisement placed in a newspaper by appellee which read as follows:

SATURDAY ONLY
CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
Buy any new 1979 Cadillac
or 1979 Cadillac Demo...
Get a Brand New 1980
TOYOTA
TERCEL
FREE!

A careful examination of the pleadings conclusively establishes that there is no genuine triable issue as to any material facts, and that appellee is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Williams v. Howard, 329 So.2d 277 (Fla.1976); American Housing Systems Corp. v. Country Club of Miami Corp., 342 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Barentine v. Clements, 328 So.2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc., 306 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

FERGUSON, Judge

(specially concurring).

While agreeing with the majority that plaintiff has no cause of action on a contract theory, I believe appellee’s advertisement, for failure to set forth the conditions in connection with the “free” automobile, is misleading and therefore violates state law. § 817.415, Fla.Stat. (1979).