This is an appeal 1 from an order of the District Court of the Southern District of Florida dismissing appellant Beck’s second amended counterсlaim for failure to state a cause of action. We AFFIRM.
Appellee Beye is one of the plaintiffs in the cаse in chief and Beck is one of the defendants. The plaintiffs sued Beck and the other defendants for violations of thе federal and state securities laws. 2 A cross-claim was filed by certain of the defendants against Beck, alleging active negligence by him. Beck then brought counterclaims against Beye for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, indemnification, and contribution in the event that Beck is found liable to the plaintiffs or other defendants. The counterclаims here in question represent Beck’s third attempt to frame a sufficient claim for relief.
It is Beck’s position that priоr to the investment made by plaintiffs that Beye represented in writing that he had sufficient financial expertise, knowledge and experience in tax and business matters to act as the Offeree’s Representative for himself and the other plaintiffs. The essence of Beck’s theory of Beye’s liability is set forth in paragraph 14 of his second amended countеrclaim, that:
Had plaintiff, Terry Beye, properly performed his duty as the plaintiffs’ Offeree Representative, the рlaintiffs would not have purchased limited partnership interests from the partnership. In excess of $700,000 in tax losses would not hаve been generated to purchasers having little or no taxable income. This action would never have beеn brought against defendant, Beck.
*325 On appeal Beck has failed to demonstrate any legal basis under which Beye сould be liable to him.
First, Beck attempts to state a cause of action for common-law fraud or misrepresеntation against Beye. The essential elements necessary under Florida law to establish such a claim are:
a fаlse statement of fact, (2) known by the defendant to be false at the time it was made, and (3) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act in reliance thereon; (4) action by the plaintiff in reliance on the correctness of the representations; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff, [cites omitted]
Community Bank, Lake Oswego, Oregon v. Bank of Hallandale and Trust Company,
Beck has failed to show how the alleged misrepresentations were material or how he relied upon them to his detriment. The letter attached to the second amended counterclaim as an exhibit shows on its face that any representations were made not to Beck but. to defendant Finkel. Assuming that Beck did rely on the truthfulnеss of all statements in the letter, there is no causal relation between that information and the acts of Beck for which he is being sued.
Beck seeks indemnity but fails to show the existence of any express or implied contract for indemnity or any duty imposed by law giving rise to a basis for indemnity. He does not show what duty Beye owed him, how it was breached, and most importantly, how a breach of the duty injured him. Even if Beye did breach some duty, it was a duty owed to the plaintiffs and not to Beck. Moreоver, Beye’s alleged failure to perform his duty as Offeree’s Representative is simply not related to the acts fоr which Beck is being sued — fraud and failure to register under applicable securities laws.
Furthermore, it may be noted that indemnification tends to frustrate the policy of securities legislation. “A securities wrongdoer should not be permitted to escape loss by shifting his entire responsibility to another party.”
Heizer Corp. v. Ross,
Beck also seeks contribution in the event he is found liable. Contribution is available from joint securities tortfeasors under the federal securities laws for securities violations,
Heizer, supra,
and
Odette v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc.,
At common law as a general rule contribution exists only in favor of one who has discharged a common liability or burden. 18 C. J. S.
Contribution
§ 1 page 2, and generally there is no contribution between joint tortfeasors,
Hoffman v. Jones,
(Fla.1973)
For the reasons set out above, Beck has failed tо disclose any legal basis upon which he is entitled to recover from Beye. The dismissal of his last amended counterclaim is therefore AFFIRMED.
Notes
. We dismissed Beck’s appeal for failure to obtain a Rule 54(b) certification. Following an ordеr of certification by the lower court, on appellant’s motion for reconsideration the appeаl was reinstated.
. It is charged that the defendants, including Beck, violated the securities laws in connection with the sale оf a tax shelter for the year 1976 for which the plaintiffs paid $203,000 and that Beck participated in the effort to sell the shеlter, by drafting the tax opinion included in the offering circular and by preparing the circular itself.
. In brief appellant makes no mention of the Florida Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Fla.St.1975, § 768.31. By virtue of some mention of the statute in the recоrd appellee adverts to the statute as being without application because by its terms it does not apply in favor of one who intentionally causes or contributed to the injury. In reply appellant does not challenge that construction as applied to this case.