Seawell v. HARGARTEN

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[a] misunderstanding cannot result in agreement” for contractual or novation purposes
• concluding “a misunderstanding cannot result in agreement or to a ‘meeting of the minds’ required to form a contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Miami-Dade County v. Second Sunrise Investment Corp.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2011-03-02· cited 6×
• JANE ALLEN v. ESTATE OF JAY E. ALLEN
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2020-04-22
• Jordan Alexander Price v. Natasha Yvonne Peek, f/k/a Natasha Y. Price
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2020-12-22

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Braswell v. Braswell
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-09-15· cited 25×
• Fort v. Fort
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-03-26· cited 9×
• Bridges v. Bridges
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-06-25· cited 7×
• De Las Cuevas v. National Enterprises, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-03-29· cited 7×
• Demoraes v. Demoraes
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-07-24· cited 1×