Case ID: so2d_241/html/0725-02.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

Paul SPERBER and Claire M. Sperber, his wife, Appellants, v. Murray BERKOWITZ, Al Moskovits, and Max L. Bloch, Appellees.
    No. 70-282.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 8, 1970.
    Leo M. Alpert, Miami, for appellants.
    Jepeway, Gassen & Jepeway, Miami, for appellees.
    Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARK-DULL, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment which denied their complaint for cancellation of an option agreement for the purchase of land owned by them and which granted defendant-counterclaim-ants’ counterclaim for specific performance of the contract. On appeal the appellants urge first that the court erred in denying the cancellation because the plaintiff-appellants had proved frustration of purpose, inequitable conduct and indefiniteness of contract. We have examined the record in the light of these contentions and find that there was conflicting evidence before the trial court upon each of them. The record reveals competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Williams McWilliams Industries, Inc. v. Heart-a-Tampa, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 920.

In addition appellants urge that the counterclaim for specific performance should not have been granted because the contract is indefinite, ambiguous and one-sided. We have examined the contract and the evidence submitted upon these issues and find that it does not appear that these defenses were established as a matter of law. White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581 (1939); Biscayne Associates v. Carson, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 871.

Affirmed.