Case Name: ETIENNE DUPUCH, JR., PUBLICATIONS, LTD., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Lu LEISSERING, Manfred M. Leissering, Michael Finest World Treasure Jewelry, Inc., and Michael Pirates World, Inc., Appellees; Lu Leissering, Appellant, v. Etienne Dupuch, Jr., Publications, Ltd., a foreign corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-03-17
Citations: 730 So. 2d 348
Docket Number: Nos. 98-0790, 98-0791
Parties: ETIENNE DUPUCH, JR., PUBLICATIONS, LTD., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Lu LEISSERING, Manfred M. Leissering, Michael Finest World Treasure Jewelry, Inc., and Michael Pirates World, Inc., Appellees. Lu Leissering, Appellant, v. Etienne Dupuch, Jr., Publications, Ltd., a foreign corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, COPE, and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 730
Pages: 348–348

Head Matter:
ETIENNE DUPUCH, JR., PUBLICATIONS, LTD., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Lu LEISSERING, Manfred M. Leissering, Michael Finest World Treasure Jewelry, Inc., and Michael Pirates World, Inc., Appellees. Lu Leissering, Appellant, v. Etienne Dupuch, Jr., Publications, Ltd., a foreign corporation, Appellee.
Nos. 98-0790, 98-0791.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 17, 1999.
Stuart A. Goldstein, Miami, for appellant.
Jay M. Levy, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, COPE, and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, defendant, Lu Leissering, appeals from a final judgment after bench trial finding her individually liable for amounts owed to plaintiff, Dupuch Publications, Ltd., pursuant to contract. Plaintiff appeals from the final judgment which exonerated defendant Manfred Leis-sering of personal liability for that same debt. We affirm both final judgments.
As Manfred Leissering did not sign the contract, we see no basis for imposing liability under it. The record amply supports trial court's rejection of the theories of agency or ratification presented by plaintiff.
Similarly, whether considering the face of the contract or the evidence at trial, Lu Leissering failed to establish "the intention . that the principal and not the agent, was the party to be bound_" Falsten v. Kirksey, 103 Fla. 225, 137 So. 267 (1931).
Affirmed.