Briggs v. Mann
| Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
| Citation | 116 So. 2,95 Fla. 31 |
| Parties | BRIGGS v. MANN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; A. J. Rose, Judge.
Action by C. A. Mann against C. A. Briggs. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Party moving for directed verdict, admits facts stated in evidence and reasonably inferable conclusions favorable to adverse party. A party moving for a directed verdict admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence.
If reasonable men may differ as to existence of fact establishing ultimate fact or inferences deducible from conceded facts, case should go to jury. If reasonable men may differ as to the existence of facts establishing an ultimate fact, or as to inferences to be drawn from conceded facts the case should be submitted to the jury.
Damages for seller's failure to deliver goods is ordinarily difference between contract price and market price at time and place of delivery. Where the breach consists in the failure of the seller to deliver the goods, the measure of damages is ordinarily the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the time and place of delivery.
In action for failure to deliver goods sold, evidence of damages must ordinarily show difference between contract price and market price at time and place of delivery. In an action by the buyer, there must be sufficient evidence of the damages sustained by him consequent on nondelivery. The evidence of such damages must ordinarily show the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time when, and the place where, the delivery was to be made under the contract.
Shutts & Bowen, John S. Benz, and Sherman Minton, all of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
The above cause comes to this court on writ of error from the Dade county circuit court as a result of a disagreement between above-named litigants as to the purchase and sale of an automobile. The conclusion is reached from the record that the gentlemen were well-to-do residents of some of our Northern States who sought to escape the artic weather of their home country by coming to Florida and enjoying its salubrious climate during the winter season. It is also concluded that, after arriving at Miami, where because of its balmy breezes, it is euphoniously stated that 'it is June in January,' Mr. Briggs found himself afoot, so to speak, and without his own means of conveyance wherewith he might travel around and see more of the beauties of Florida. He needed an automobile for that purpose, and purchased one from Mr. Mann for $1,850, with the agreement that on April 1st following Mr. Mann could repurchase it for $1,000. Mr. Mann gave his check for $100 to Mr. Briggs as a sort of a binder on the repurchase agreement. April 1st rolled around, and Mr. Mann broached the subject of the repurchase of the car at the agreed price of $1,000, but Mr. Briggs suggested that $1,500 would be more appropriate. This suggestion did not meet with any enthusiasm on the part of Mr. Mann, and suit was instituted by him against Mr. Briggs, and the matter given into the hands of the court for adjudication.
Two witnesses testified in the trial of the cause. Mr. Mann testified that the car was a 1923 model three 61 Cadillac; that its value on the date he sold it to Mr. Briggs, to wit, January 10, 1924, was $2,500; that between that date and April 1, 1924, the date for the repurchase, it would depreciate $600 or $700, 'providing it was in good condition'; that its market value around April 1, 1924, would be 'around $1,900 to $2,000.'
Mr. Darby testified that on April 1, 1924, the fair market value of the car was about $1,000; that the car had braided mohair trimmings like that used in Pullman cars, but that it had been damaged, and that he saw the car around April 1st, and that the door handles were off, and the exterior and interior looked like they had had poor care. He was also asked, 'What was the ordinary depreciation and market value of that car on April 1, 1924?' to which he replied, There was also a paper writing filed in evidence purporting to be a purchase and sale agreement when Briggs bought the car from Mann, but in its status as shown by the record it is unimportant in a consideration of the issues here.
At the conclusion of all the testimony, the plaintiff made the following motion for a directed verdict for the plaintiff, as follows:
'That there is no dispute in the testimony as to the following facts: That the plaintiff sold to the defendant the automobile which at first it was agreed was worth $2,500, and the sale was made for $1,850, and at the same time the defendant agreed to resell the said automobile to the plaintiff for $1,000 on or before April 1, 1924, and that at the time the plaintiff paid to defendant the sum of $100 to bind that bargain, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Florida Power & Light Co.
...favorable to his adversary fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. E. E. Alley Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034, 136 So. 704; Briggs v. Mann, 95 Fla. 31, 116 So. 2; Refining Co. v. Ankeny, 102 Fla. 151, 135 So. 521; Wolfe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774, 134 So. 539, 137 So. 892; Stevens v. Tam......
- State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
-
Commercial Credit Co., Inc. v. Parker
... ... the jury may reasonably infer therefrom (Alhambra Groves ... v. Cody, 99 Fla. 448, 126 So. 749; Briggs v ... Mann, 95 Fla. 31, 116 So. 2); and that, where there is ... some substantial evidence tending to prove the issue for the ... plaintiff, a ... ...
-
Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Bradley
...to his adversary fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. See E. E. Alley Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034, 136 So. 704; Briggs v. Mann, 95 Fla. 31, 116 So. 2; Refining Co. v. Ankeny, 102 Fla. 151, 135 So. 521; Wolfe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774, 134 So. 539, 137 So. 892; Stevens v. Tampa Ele......