Robert & Co., Inc. v. Mortland

• Decision Date: 06 February 1948
• Citation: 160 Fla. 125,33 So.2d 732
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERT & CO., Inc. v. MORTLAND.

33 So.2d 732

160 Fla. 125

ROBERT & CO., Inc. v. MORTLAND.

Florida Supreme Court

February 6, 1948

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L Parks, judge.

Miles H Draper, of Tampa, for appellant.

Fowler White, Gillen, Yancy & Humkey, of Tampa, for appellee.

TERRELL, Justice.

In 1938, the City of Tampa promulgated plans for the construction of a 'Master sewer project,' the cost of which was estimated at $4,000,000. Appellant, hereafter referred to as defendant, became interested in securing the contract to perform the engineering work on this project. Appellee hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, was also interested in securing the same contract, but later found that he was not financially able to undertake a project of that magnitude. After investigating the responsibility of a number of engineering firms, plaintiff decided that defendant was the best qualified firm in the field for the job. Through a mutual friend plaintiff contacted defendant and as a result of this contact, defendant sent its representative to Tampa to confer with plaintiff. Immediately after this conference plaintiff commenced performing services for defendant which we shall speak of more in detail later.

There was no written contract between the parties, but there are about one hundred communications in the record convering the period from January 1939 to March 1941, which given a very good idea of the services performed by the plaintiff, that were voluntarily accepted by defendant. The defendant and its agents made many requests of the plaintiff for reports and information as to developments in Tampa and all were promptly responded to. Much advice besides information was given the defendant and when the engineering contract for constructing the Master sewer system was awarded, defendant was the successful applicant, the fee agreed on being 3.7 per cent of the cost or a maximum fee of $148,000.

A great deal of work was done but on account of financial stress the City of Tampa in 1947 exercised its option to cancel its contract and paid defendant $33,014.22 for services. In 1943, after the Master sewer contract was entered into, the City of Tampa entered into contract with defendant for engineering services in connection with the construction of a water supply system. It is alleged that this contract was secured as the result of services performed by plaintiff for defendant. This contract was also canceled at the same time the Master sewer contract was canceled and defendant was paid $55,000 for services. On both contracts defendant was paid $88,014.22 for engineering services, but has so far declined to pay plaintiff for services rendered.

Plaintiff alleges that a reasonable fee for his services would be ten per cent of the amount collected by defendant so he filed his declaration to recover such an amount on quantum meruit. Later he filed a bill of particulars detailing the services alleged to have been performed.

Defendant filed, (1) a plea of never was indebted, (2) a plea of never promised as alleged, (3) a plea of payment, and (4) an amended plea wherein it was alleged that the plaintiff was paid $519.99 for engineering services by defendant, which constituted full payment and satisfaction of all sums due him. There was a replication to the fourth plea. On the issues so made, the trial resulted in a verdict for $4,801.42, with interest, to which a remittitur of $1,500 was required by the trial court. The remittitur was duly entered and a final judgment for $3,301.42, plus interest and costs, or a total of $4,867.20 was entered. Defendant has appealed from the final judgment and plaintiff has cross-appealed from that part of the final judgment requiring the remittitur.

It is not denied that plaintiff did perform a great deal of promotional and other service for defendant with the view of helping it secure the contracts in question, but the latter contends that his services were illegal and no contract to pay them can be enforced because (1) the Master sewer contract was with a public agency, and the compensation for plaintiff's services was entirely contingent. (2) The means used to secure the contract with the City were personal or political and contrary to public policy, and being so, the plaintiff is precluded from recovery.

The plaintiff is a very reputable engineer, residing in the City of Tampa and the defendant is a very reputable engineering firm with its principal place of business in the City of Atlanta. It is not disputed that plaintiff rendered the services in question that defendant knowingly accepted them, and that in the main, they consisted in (1) keeping defendant advised as to the local situation. (2) Contacting civic organizations and leaders and convincing them why defendant should be awarded the Master sewer contract. (3) Keeping defendant advised of developments in Tampa and directing his representatives whom to contact there. (4) Responding to defendant's requests for information, advice and opinions which required unending search and the writing of...