Wood v. Black
| Decision Date | 15 July 1952 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 15 |
| Parties | WOOD v. BLACK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James T. Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
McClure & Turville, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
October 4, 1950, E. M. Wood executed a contract with Nellie D. Black to construct a residence on land owned by the latter. Wood furnished labor and materials costing $2,808.18 on which account Black paid $1,500 leaving a balance due of $1,308.18. Black terminated the contract and assumed responsibility for its completion. The original contract price was $7,790.00.
After refusal by Black to pay Wood for the materials and labor furnished, he instituted this suit to foreclose a mechanics' lien for the cost of labor, materials and services furnished. Black filed an answer and a counterclaim. On the issues so made the case was tried on stipulation of facts and evidence taken before the court. The stipulation of facts admitted the expenditures alleged in the declaration. At final hearing the trial court dismissed the bill of complaint, holding that Wood could not recover because he had not secured a general contractor's license from the city. The plaintiff has appealed from this judgment.
The point for determination is whether or not Black was authorized to terminate her contract with Wood and refuse to pay him for labor and materials furnished on the sole ground that he had not secured a general contractor's license as required by the city ordinance.
The essential facts as alleged in the pleadings are admitted. It is also admitted that the City had an ordinance providing that those engaged in the business of general contractors should secure a city license. The ordinance made it 'unlawful for any person to violate any of the terms of this article' but imposed no penalty for doing so, nor did it invalidate contracts of those failing to secure such a license. The trial court grounded his order of dismissal solely on the theory that appellant had not secured the city license.
In so holding we think the trial court was in error. We do not think his interpretation of the ordinance was warranted and then appellant was not seeking to recover on the contract. He was in a court of equity seeking to recover the actual cost of labor, materials and services furnished as provided by Section 84.02, F.S.A. The record shows that the contract was about 60 per cent. completed when it was canceled and taken over by the owner but no recovery is attempted on that. Recovery is predicated solely on the reasonable value of the labor, services and materials, based on a quantum meruit. Jones v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127, 43 A.L.R. 1409; Craven v. Hartley, 102 Fla. 282, 135 So. 899 and Palmer v. Edwards, Fla., 51 So.2d 495, are relied on to support appellant's contention.
It is our view that the appellant is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the labor and materials furnished on a quantum meruit basis, no recovery allowed for 'profit and supervision' claimed in his statement. The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed with directions to ascertain the reasonable amounts due for labor and material and decree accordingly.
Reversed with directions.
The appellant by a formal contract agreed to construct a dwelling in St. Petersburg for the appellee for a stipulated sum, and expended to that end approximately three thousand dollars, half of which was paid. The appellee then terminated the contract and assumed the responsibility of completing the structure. Because the appellant had not obtained a certificate of competency as required by the ordinance of the city, recovery on a quantum meruit basis was denied.
Under the authority of Chapter 15505, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1931 and its amendments, constituting the charter of the city, it was ordained that every general contractor should procure and maintain a license and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Todisco v. Econopouly
...Other courts have sought to prevent unjust enrichment to defendants by allowing plaintiffs to recover in quantum meruit (e.g., Wood v. Black, 60 So.2d 15 [Fla]; Magill v. Lewis, 74 Nev. 381, 333 P.2d 717; Fischer v. Rakagis, 59 N.M. 463, 286 P.2d 312, Hagberg v. John Bailey Contractor, 435 ......
-
Hiram Ricker and Sons v. Students Intern. Meditation Soc.
...theory of quantum meruit, for the fair value of their work where such recovery would avoid inequities and unjust enrichment. Wood v. Black, Fla., 60 So.2d 15 (1952); Gatti v. Highland Park Builders, 27 Cal.2d 687, 166 P.2d 265 (1946); Lindner Appraisal Corp. v. H. Mabel Frewil Corp., 72 Mis......
-
Hiram Ricker and Sons v. Students Intern. Meditation Soc., No. 73-1273
...plaintiffs to recover the reasonable value of their work, relying on equitable considerations presented by the facts. See Wood v. Black, 60 So.2d 15 (Fla.1952); Gatti v. Highland Park Builders, 27 Cal.2d 687, 166 P.2d 265 (1946); cf. Crawford v. Holcomb, 57 N.M. 691, 262 P.2d 782 (1953) (di......
-
Hull & Company, Inc. v. Thomas
...requirements of providing a written estimate or obtaining a written waiver. Id. at 1290 (emphasis in original). Hull cites to Wood v. Black, 60 So.2d 15 (Fla.1952) and Duncan v. Kasim, Inc., 810 So.2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), but they are In Wood, a building contractor filed suit to foreclo......
-
Distinguishing quantum meruit and unjust enrichment in the construction setting.
...a technical deficiency or because it violates public policy, the contractor may still recover in quantum meruit. See, e.g., Wood v. Black, 60 So. 2d 15 (1952) (contract unenforceable because contractor not licensed); Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (statute of......