Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc.

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1175 (1990)
1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 633; 1990 WL 8662
Jorgenson, Levy, Schwartz

Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Comreal Miami, Inc., appeals from a final judgment denying recovery in an action for a real estate commission. We affirm.

At trial, the dispute between Comreal and Hatari focused on two questions. The first question was whether the brokerage contract was an exclusive right to sale agreement; the second was whether the agreement had been terminated. The court instructed the jury on both issues. Without objection from either party, a general verdict form was submitted to the jury. The jury found for the defendant, and the court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Based on the “two issue” rule, we affirm. Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1980); Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1977). “In the absence of an objection to the use of the general verdict, the ‘two issue’ rule dictates that reversal would be improper because appellant is unable to demonstrate prejudice.” Pfister v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., 405 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1982).

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
COMREAL MIAMI, INC. v. HATARI IMPORTS, INC., John Ludwig and Carter Hopkins
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published