Boat Town U.S. A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Division Of Brunswick Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-1552,76-1552
• Citation: 364 So.2d 15
• Parties: BOAT TOWN U. S. A., INC., Stephen Grossman and Albert H. Tate, Jr., Appellants, v. MERCURY MARINE DIVISION OF BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 15

364 So.2d 15

BOAT TOWN U. S. A., INC., Stephen Grossman and Albert H. Tate, Jr., Appellants, v. MERCURY MARINE DIVISION OF BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 76-1552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1978.

Donald M. Coon, Miami, for appellants.

Davis W. Duke, Jr., of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

CROSS, Judge.

Appellant-counterclaimant, Boat Town U.S.A., Inc., et al., appeals a judgment entered on the pleadings of a counterclaim in favor of appellee-counter-defendants, Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Corporation, in an action instituted by Mercury seeking to recover sums allegedly owed under a contract for sale of goods. We reverse.

Boat Town U.S.A. is a Florida corporation engaged in the sale of marine products, whose place of business is in Broward County, Florida. Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Corporation (hereinafter Mercury) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. The relationship between Boat Town and Mercury is evidenced by a written agreement termed "Direct Sales Contract," which made Boat Town a dealer of specified Mercury products. This agreement was made renewable each year by Mercury; the last such agreement was dated September 9, 1974. Prior to September 1975, Mercury, without prior written notice of its intention, refused to renew the agreement. Boat Town then refused to make payments to Mercury for Mercury products previously delivered to Boat Town. Mercury then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, for sums it claimed were due and owing for Mercury products. Boat Town answered and filed a counterclaim, alleging that the action of Mercury in failing to renew the agreement violated Chapter 135, Wisconsin Statutes, known as the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, and this constituted a breach of the agreement. Mercury answered the counterclaim and alleged as an affirmative defense No. 4 that "Chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes, . . . has no applicability to this cause or to Florida dealers, alleged or actual; nor does that chapter provide any jurisdictional basis for a Florida court, or any court applying Florida law, to grant relief thereunder. All counts and claims of the counterclaim premised thereon should be dismissed with prejudice."

Boat Town then moved to strike Mercury's affirmative defense No. 4, which after hearing was denied by the trial court. Mercury then moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain counts of the counterclaim. The trial court, after hearing, determined as a matter of law that the provisions of Chapter 135, Wisconsin Statutes, known as the "Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law" are inapplicable to a dealer located in Florida and therefore were inapplicable in the instant cause. Judgment for the appellee-counter-defendant was accordingly entered. This appeal then followed.

As its initial point, appellant asserts that Mercury and Boat Town expressly selected the law of Wisconsin to govern their agreement.

Paragraph II of the Direct Sales Agreement provides:

"II. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement and all its provisions are to be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Any provision of this contract which in any wise contravenes or is unenforceable under any law of the nation of the state or states in which this agreement is effective shall be deemed separable and not to be part of this agreement."

Appellant urges us to the view that the above quoted provision reflects the intention of the parties to be bound by Wisconsin law not only in the interpretation and construction of the terms of the contract itself, but also as to the substantive rights and obligations of the parties themselves. Appellant cites C. A. Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., No. C76-132A (N.D.Ga.1976), aff'd (5th Cir. 1977), in support of its position. In C. A. Marine the trial judge for the federal district court, in construing the identical provision in a contract between parties other than those here before us now, determined that the quoted language did provide for the express selection of Wisconsin law to govern the entire legal relationship of the parties. With all due regard for the views of the learned trial judge, we must respectfully decline from that view.

It is the law in Florida that the language used in a contract is the best evidence of the intent and meaning of the parties. Home Devel. Co. v. Bursani, 178 So.2d 113 (Fla.1965). As was recognized in the C. A. Marine case, a distinction exists between the words "interpretation" and "govern." Interpretation is defined as "(t)he art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning of a . . . written document." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968. On the other hand, govern means "to direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established law or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority." Black's, id. The difference between "interpretation" and "govern" is more than a technical distinction. It goes to the very heart of the purpose underlying a contract. The terms of a contract generally govern the conduct of the parties. It is the purpose of interpretation to ascertain what those terms are. However, it is settled law in Florida that a court may resort to the process of interpretation only when the words used in a contract are unclear. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So.2d 221 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). The ambiguity must exist on the face of the document itself before extrinsic matters may be considered by the court. Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park Service Company, 253 So.2d 744 (Fla.4th DCA 1971).

In the instant case, there is no assertion, nor could any be substantiated, that ambiguities exist in the terms of the contract. Thus, the interpretation clause of the contract has no effect and does not provide an explicit choice of Wisconsin law to govern the conduct of the parties.

The...