Case Name: Roman PENA and Maritza Pena, Appellants, v. Timothy ROURKE, Kathie Rourke, and Rindner/Scantlebury Building & Design II, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-04-07
Citations: 728 So. 2d 1231
Docket Number: No. 98-1927
Parties: Roman PENA and Maritza Pena, Appellants, v. Timothy ROURKE, Kathie Rourke, and Rindner/Scantlebury Building & Design II, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: STONE, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 728
Pages: 1231–1232

Head Matter:
Roman PENA and Maritza Pena, Appellants, v. Timothy ROURKE, Kathie Rourke, and Rindner/Scantlebury Building & Design II, Inc., Appellees.
No. 98-1927.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 7, 1999.
Andrew Fulton, IV and Robert M. Wein-berger of Cohen, Norris, Scherer & Wein-berger, North Palm Beach, for appellants.
Steven L. Schwarzberg and Jeffrey S. Mooallem of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees Timothy Rourke and Kathie Rourke.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm a summary judgment entered in favor of the sellers in this action by the buyers to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of real property. The record reflects that upon receipt of the buyers' initial offer, the sellers modified its terms by a counter-offer. Although the sale price in the counter-offer was accepted by at least one of the buyers, they did not accept an additional provision in terms identical to, or even essentially the same as, the additional term proposed. It is well settled that an acceptance must be according to the same terms as an offer. Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So.2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Press v. Jordan, 670 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). As a contract would not have been formed even if the alleged acceptance had been communicated to the sellers, all other issues are moot.
STONE, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.