Title: Opinion File 77-74 thru 77-75
CITATION THUMBNAILS ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003495/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opinion File 77-74 thru 77-75
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Buddy Blain's Collections - Opinion File 77-74 thru 77-75
General Note: Box 14, Folder 5 ( Opinions 1976 - 1977 - 1976 - 1977 ), Item 48
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003495
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

S771-74


March 16, 1977 KEY WORDS: 4 4

MEMO TO: MGG

FROM: KMG /' ~

RE: Termination Provision in SWFWMD Contract

As is generallytthe case with the assignments that you

give me, there is very little Florida Law on this subject;

however, I did find a case which is very similar on the facts

and is still good law. The only drawback is that it is a 1938

Supreme Court decision.

Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., involves the sublease

of a filling station which gave the sublessee right to cancel

it on 15 days notice and payment of $100. The Court noted

that there is a split of authority as to the effect of such a

provision. Some jurisdictions hold that contracts containing

such provisions are unenforceable due to lack of mutuality;

however, Florida, under the Thompson case, seems to have adopted

the opposite position. The Supreme Court in Thompson held that

the fatt that a contract is terminable at the option of only one

of the parties thereto, does not render it objectionable for lack

of mutualitfywfremedy, nor prevent the party having the option

from enjoining a breacho6f contract. The Court recognizes the

doctrine mutuality remedy is an artificial rule of reciprocity.

and its fundamental purpose is simply to secure performance on

the Plaintiff's part of his excutory promise; therefore, the

objection of lack of mutuality would not prevent the enforcement

of a contract as long as it is actually kept alive by the Plain-

f tiff's continued performance.
Under the authority of the Thompson case, the district may


... _. ~I I ,~~,,....~,~, ~,,





un 3 ` 77-75






leave the termination clause in its contract and still be

able to enforce them in the Courts.

mk


I




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs