Genman Corp., et al., Appellants, v. Richard Rinella, Appellee. (2025)

Affirmed. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jidy, 44 So. 3d 162, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine ‘allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons so long as there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ ”) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Idearc Media Corp. v. M.R. Friedman & G.A. Friedman, P.A., 985 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“When certain provisions of a contract conflict, ‘it is a general principle of contract interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same subject.’ ”) (quoting Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“It is apodictic that, under contract law, the more specific contractual provision controls over the general provision.”); Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (“All the various provisions of a contract must be so construed, if it can reasonably be done, as to give effect to each.”).

PER CURIAM.