Source: https://mcneallegal.com/category/civil-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:48:57+00:00

Document:
Many times, people think they have an agreement with someone, only to find out that they don’t. Of course, if there is no actual “contract”, there may be other remedies available, but the fact that someone doesn’t have a valid, enforceable, contract can cause concern.
In Office Pavilion South Florida, Inc. v. ASAL Products, Inc., 849 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the parties had a contract for keyboards, which obligated one party to purchase a minimum of 1,000 keyboards a year. There was also a provision for the purchase of chairs, however, there was no minimum quantity term for the chairs. The Court noted that it is a fundamental principle of contract law that a promise must be supported by consideration to be enforceable. And, in a contract where the parties exchange promises of performance, “[i]f either of those promises is illusory or unenforceable then there is no consideration for the other promise.” Id at 370. The Court held that Pavilion agreed to sell to ASAL any chairs it chose to order at the price set forth in the price list. While ASAL may have agreed, its acceptance involved no promised performance and therefore did not constitute consideration to support the contract modification for the Aeron Chairs. Id. The Court also noted that, under Florida Statutes §672. 201(1), without a quantity for the amount of chairs purchased, the contract would be unenforceable.
Without all of the requirements of a contract, and a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the contract, the Court here found that a contract did not exist.
This is a notice of my intention to impose a claim for damages in the amount of upon your security deposit, due to. It is sent to you as required by §83.49(3), Florida Statutes. You are hereby notified that you must object in writing to this deduction from your security deposit within 15 days from the time you receive this notice or I will be authorized to deduct my claim from your security deposit. Your objection must be sent to (landlord’s address).
This statute applies to residential tenancies. There are separate statutes for commercial tenancies.
The residential portion of Florida Statues chapter 83 also addresses different kinds of rent payments, including advance rent payments. This could have a bearing on the return of rent payments, if a tenant vacates before the end of the term paid for. In Florida, if a lessee pays rent in advance and the lease is properly terminated by the lessor, then the lessor is not required to return the advance rental payment. See Atlantis Estate Acquisitions, Inc. v. DePierro, 125 So.3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
The wording of Florida Statute §83.49(3)(a) seems counter-intuitive. If the landlord does not plan to keep any of your security deposit, they have 15 days to return your money. But, if they do plan on keeping your funds, they have 30 days to notify you of their intent to keep your funds. Importantly, if a landlord fails to send a notice as required by this statute (i.e. within the 30 days), the landlord forfeits the right to keep the deposit. However, that same landlord can bring a lawsuit against the tenant for damages.
As always, it is important to contact a lawyer regarding your rights and responsibilities as a landlord or tenant.
I oftentimes talk with existing clients about how important it is to be proactive in making business decisions. You would be surprised how many people come to my office AFTER having signed a contract (many worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) and say: “I just signed this contract. I have concerns about X, Y, or Z. Will you look at it for me?” My first response is: “If you had concerns, why didn’t you come to me or someone else BEFORE you signed the contract.” It is very important when you are entering into a contract to have an attorney review the contract, and discuss with you your legal rights and responsibilities. People often ignore certain “standard” parts of a contract or often feel that they have no ability to negotiate the terms of a contract.
Many terms of a contract are negotiable, and oftentimes, negotiating certain terms of a contract end up benefiting both parties in the end. I have reviewed several contracts where the person presenting the contract to my client used a form from someone else (i.e. no one had consulted an attorney), and didn’t realize there was an agreement that if a lawsuit was brought, venue was in an inconvenient location where neither party would want to litigate. Speaking with an attorney prior to signing a contract can also lead to possible different ways to achieve the same intent of the contract, without as much risk involved.
It also gives you the chance to talk with someone experienced who can advise you on what is in your best interest. I have often heard the phrase: “You can’t make a good deal with a bad person.” I am often surprised when someone (who has already signed a contract with a “bad” person) knew that person had failed to fulfill their obligations to previous parties. Most people would seek the advice of a doctor when making a significant medial decision. It is axiomatic that having the benefit of legal advice when entering into a contract where one is obligated to perform is almost necessary to protect one’s person and business interests.
In a recent case out of the 5th District Court of Appeal, Blue Earth Solutions v. Florida Consolidated Properties, LLC, 113 So.3d 991 (5th DCA 2013) the appellate court noted the case was “a classic example of what often occurs when parties attempt to consummate a complex business transaction without the benefit of legal representation. What makes this case especially remarkable is that this business transaction involved almost half a million dollars. Within twenty days after the so-called closing of the sale of business assets, the entire transaction unraveled, culminating in legal proceedings.” Having the advice and counsel of an attorney can help you avoid those situations and make the best possible decisions for you and your business.
The Court also cited to The Florida Bar v. Richardson, 574 So.2d 60 (Fla.1990) where the Florida Supreme Court suspended an attorney, finding “absolutely no justification” for unit billing, stating: Lawyers are officers of the court. The court is an instrument of society for the administration of justice. Justice should be administered economically, efficiently, and expeditiously. The attorney’s fee, is therefore a very important factor in the administration of justice, and if it is not determined with proper relation to that fact it results in a species of social malpractice that undermines the confidence of the public in the bench and bar. It does more than that; it brings the court into disrepute and destroys its power to perform adequately the function of its creation. The Florida Bar v. Richardson, 574 So.2d at 62 (quoting Baruch v. Giblin, 122 Fla. 59, 164 So. 831 (1935)).

References: v. 
 §672
 §83
 v. 
 §83
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.