Contragolpe LLC v. 505 NE 30 Street, LLC
Sellers of condominium units sued after the assigned buyer cancelled a purchase agreement and refused to fund a second deposit, with the dispute turning on the contract's 'effective date' after addenda extended the 'time for acceptance of this contract.' The trial court found the term ambiguous, considered conflicting parol evidence (texts and emails between agents), and granted summary judgment for the buyer. The Third District reversed, holding the discrepancy between the lowercase 'this contract' and the defined term 'Contract' was a patent ambiguity that could not be resolved by parol evidence, let alone conflicting parol evidence at summary judgment.
Key facts
- Sellers of condominium units sued buyers who cancelled a purchase agreement and refused to fund a second deposit after addenda extended the contract's time for acceptance.
- The purchase agreement contained a discrepancy between references to lowercase 'this contract' and the capitalized defined term 'Contract,' creating ambiguity about which version governed the effective date.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.