David Steinfeld in the courtroom - Video 1
Video Description
This video shows what business lawyers actually do. In this video Florida Bar Board Certified expert business lawyer David Steinfeld appears in an appellate courtroom to defend the judgment that he obtained for his clients after winning the bench trial in the case.
The defendant that Mr. Steinfeld sued for his clients lost the trial. They appealed and said the trial judge was wrong that they breached their contracts. In this segment, Mr. Steinfeld discusses why the trial judge was right. The appellate court agreed with Mr. Steinfeld and affirmed the trial court's ruling.
The defendant that Mr. Steinfeld sued for his clients lost the trial. They appealed and said the trial judge was wrong that they breached their contracts. In this segment, Mr. Steinfeld discusses why the trial judge was right. The appellate court agreed with Mr. Steinfeld and affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Video Transcript
Mr. Steinfeld: Good morning Your Honors. David Steinfeld on behalf of the Appellees, the Raos. I was the Plaintiffs’ trial attorney below as well opposing Mr. Peters. Before I begin since there are three distinct issues that the Appellant has laid out, one is the issue with the contract, the second is the issue with the civil theft claim that the Florida Cardiovascular brought, and the third is Judge Mahl’s [Judge Jeffrey Mahl] decision to strike the counterclaim.
Are there any specific areas that the Court wishes to focus on. I notice that the Appellant did not address the civil theft claim issue. These have been well briefed by both parties to save some time and energy here and judicial labor is there any area that the Court would rather focus in on.
Judge Kerry Evander: Let’s go ahead and start with the main issue.
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, sir.
Judge Evander: The contract issue.
Are there any specific areas that the Court wishes to focus on. I notice that the Appellant did not address the civil theft claim issue. These have been well briefed by both parties to save some time and energy here and judicial labor is there any area that the Court would rather focus in on.
Judge Kerry Evander: Let’s go ahead and start with the main issue.
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, sir.
Judge Evander: The contract issue.
The contract issue
Mr. Steinfeld: Okay. Case law is very clear the WSOS versus Hadden case that this Court has cited and decided about seven months before the parties entered into this arrangement makes it very clear that if you have a contract that says it cannot be orally modified that can still occur as long as the parties have an arrangement and to not enforce it would be to work a fraud or an imposition or an injustice on the party.
Here the court, the trial court, Judge Mahl was tasked to determine whether there was substantial and competent evidence, that was the standard that he was guided by from this Court, substantial competent evidence to determine whether these two parties agreed that there was going to be a split at the end of the year some three months before the contract was to expire. And there was substantial and competent evidence in the record to support this. Judge Mahl found that the way that these parties arranged for the split was in compliance with Article 10 of the recruitment agreement from the hospital and the recruitment agreement had to be read as Judge Mahl found together with the employment agreement these were all part and parcel of each other.
Here the court, the trial court, Judge Mahl was tasked to determine whether there was substantial and competent evidence, that was the standard that he was guided by from this Court, substantial competent evidence to determine whether these two parties agreed that there was going to be a split at the end of the year some three months before the contract was to expire. And there was substantial and competent evidence in the record to support this. Judge Mahl found that the way that these parties arranged for the split was in compliance with Article 10 of the recruitment agreement from the hospital and the recruitment agreement had to be read as Judge Mahl found together with the employment agreement these were all part and parcel of each other.
