PENA v. ROURKE II (1999)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Roman PENA and Maritza Pena, Appellants, v. Timothy ROURKE, Kathie Rourke, and Rindner/Scantlebury Building & Design II, Inc., Appellees.

No. 98-1927.

Decided: April 07, 1999

Andrew Fulton, IV and Robert M. Weinberger of Cohen, Norris, Scherer & Weinberger, 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.

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.

PER CURIAM.

STONE, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law