AR Holland, Inc. v. Wendco Corp., 1D03-5198.
| Decision Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D03-5198.,1D03-5198. |
| Citation | 884 So.2d 1006 |
| Parties | A.R. HOLLAND, INC., Appellant, v. WENDCO CORPORATION, Lodgesouth, Inc., and Richard R. McAlpin, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Brady, Pensacola, for Appellant.
Robert A. Emmanuel and H. Wesley Reeder, of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for Appellees.
Appellant A.R. Holland, Inc. is a Burger King restaurant franchisee who built and operates a Burger King restaurant located on the north side of U.S. Highway 98 West near its intersection with Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida. In 1989, Holland purchased the subject real property location from Seller, McAlpin Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, pursuant to a written Purchase and Sales Agreement. Paragraph 15 of the Purchase and Sales Agreement contained the following covenant:
As a material inducement for the Purchaser to enter into this Agreement the Seller covenants that no property presently owned or hereafter acquired by the Seller within fifteen hundred (1,500) feet to the described property shall be sold or leased for use or occupancy for a business activity primarily used as a fast food restaurant whose primary menu item is hamburger or hamburger combinations similar to that being conducted by Purchaser. This covenant on the part of the seller shall survive the closing of this transaction and be for a period of twenty (20) years.
The parties to this appeal stipulated before trial that this covenant did not run with the land.
Later, the Seller, McAlpin Properties, Inc. merged into Appellee Lodgesouth, Inc., a Florida corporation. Lodgesouth, as successor of the Seller, became responsible for the covenant.1 On February 23, 2000, Lodgesouth conveyed property to Wendco Corporation, a Wendy's restaurant franchisee. The property sold to Wendco is located approximately 655 feet from Holland's Burger King restaurant location on Highway 98. After a bench trial, the trial court entered its final judgment, ruling that the appellees were not liable to Holland because Holland did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a breach of the covenant had occurred. In the proceeding below, it was Holland's burden to prove that (1) a contract existed, (2) the contract was breached, and (3) damages flowed from that breach. See Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Although we agree with Holland that there is not competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that it failed to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stein v. Paradigm Mirasol, LLC, No. 08-10983.
...however, under Florida law those types of damages are not recoverable for breach of contract anyway. See A.R. Holland, Inc. v. Wendco Corp., 884 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (speculative damages); Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 687 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 1996) (puni......
-
George v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...resulting from the breach. Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006); A.R. Holland, Inc. v. Wendco Corp., 884 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004).3 Defendant moves to dismiss the breach of contract claim on the basis that the Amended Complaint does no......
-
Ariz. Chem. Co. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc.
...record to be significant, the evidence is legally insufficient to support a claim for lost profits. See A.R. Holland, Inc. v. Wendco Corp., 884 So.2d 1006, 1008 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming judgment for defendant where plaintiff sought lost profits due to defendant's sale of neighbor......
-
Altman v. Lifespace Communities, Inc.
...from the breach. See Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 876 (Fla .Dist. Ct. App. 2006); A.R. Holland, Inc. v. Wendco Corp., 884 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). Here, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs breached the contract in several different ways: (1) failing to pay mo......