Case Name: WESTSHIP WORLD YACHTS, LLC, Appellant, v. REEL DEAL YACHTS, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-09-26
Citations: 970 So. 2d 354
Docket Number: No. 3D05-735
Parties: WESTSHIP WORLD YACHTS, LLC, Appellant, v. REEL DEAL YACHTS, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEPHERD, J., and SCHWARTZ and FLETCHER, Senior Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 970
Pages: 354–359

Head Matter:
WESTSHIP WORLD YACHTS, LLC, Appellant, v. REEL DEAL YACHTS, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D05-735.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 26, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 2007.
Fowler White Boggs Banker and Ceci Culpepper Berman and D. Finn Pressly, Tampa, for appellant.
Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito and Robert Zarco and Michelle M. Odio, Miami, for appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, J., and SCHWARTZ and FLETCHER, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment entered below on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff-appellee-yacht broker Reel Deal Yachts, Inc., for a commission on the sale of a vessel built and owned by the defendant-appellant Westship World Yachts, LLC, is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellant. This holding is based on the conclusion that, viewing the record in the required light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is no evidence that the efforts of the appellee or anyone acting on its behalf were a procuring cause of the sale, which would clearly have taken place as a result of direct contact between the principals regardless of any of the conduct upon which Reel Deal relies. See Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 780 So.2d 914 (Fla.2001); Earnest & Stewart, Inc. v. Codim, 732 So.2d 364, 365-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Stadler Commercial Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Waste Servs., Inc., 519 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kotler v. Morris Kroop, Inc., 354 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978); Dixson v. Kattel, 311 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHWARTZ and FLETCHER, Senior Judges, concur.
. For this purpose, we assume arguendo that the items of evidence objected to by appellant were properly admitted. But see Standley v. White, 326 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)("Agency may not be proved by a declaration of the putative agent in the absence of the principal."); Aerovias Panama, S.A. v. Air Carrier Engine Serv., Inc., 195 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)(same); but cf. Blunt v. Tripp Scott, P.A., 962 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("reliance of a third party on the apparent authority of a principal's agent must . rest in the actions of or appearances created by the principal, see Rushing v. Garrett, 375 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and 'not by agents who often ingeniously create an appearance of authority by their own acts[]' Taco Bell of California v. Zappone, 324 So.2d 121, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)[]" (quoting Lensa Corp. v. Poinciana Gardens Ass'n, 765 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000))); Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A., 483 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(same), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986).