Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, Inc., 63-744
| Citation | 165 So.2d 199 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-744,63-744 |
| Parties | CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MIAMI GARDENS SHOPPING PLEAZA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl and James Knight, Miami, for appellant.
Kelly, Paige, Black & Black, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
Appellant seeks review of a final summary judgment, entered in an action seeking to recover alleged excessive payments to the appellant for connecting the appellant's water and sewer lines to the appellee's property.
The record on appeal reveals that in 1959 the appellee wanted to develop a shopping center. In order to do so, it was required to supply the center with central water and sewer services. The appellee, on October 20, 1960, entered into a contract with the appellant for the latter to provide the aforementioned services in return for a charge of $19,250.00. The agreement provided it would become and be in full force and effect only when the appellee submitted it to the Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Board and obtained its approval, and delivered a properly certified copy of such approval to the appellant. 1 Prior to the agreement being submitted to the Board, the appellant completed service into the area and the appellee paid the requested charge. Thereafter, the agreement was submitted to the Board, who refused to approve the agreement on the ground that the charge of $19,250.00 was 'arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive', and found that a reasonable charge for the service was $2,617.29. This ruling was ultimately upheld upon certiorari to the circuit court, and on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida [seeking review of this decision] was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellee brought its action in the trial court seeking to recover the alleged overcharge. Issue was joined, and both parties moved for a summary judgment. The trial court, after considering the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, answers to interrogatories and admissions, entered the order appealed granting the appellee a summary judgment.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering the order appealed, in that: (1) The appellee is estopped to seek relief granted because it had entered into the contract with full knowledge of all the facts, and was in default on the contract by failure to furnish the appellant with an approved contract from the Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Board. (2) The order appealed created and enforced a new obligation between the parties, contrary to all established laws of contract.
The contract provided it would not become effective until it was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Board who, after final hearing, found that the charge of $19,250.00 provided for in the agreement was 'arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive', and that the most that the appellant could reasonably charge the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co.
...Inc., 264 So.2d 35 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Rubin v. Sanford, 168 So.2d 774 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, Inc., 165 So.2d 199 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). Second, and far more important, it is the character of the administrative hearing leading to the action......
-
Matter of Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc.
...Jet Air Freight Delivery, Inc., 264 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 267 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1972); Carol City Utilities v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, 165 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). "The adjudication and award of compensation boards or commissions, as well as the judgments of courts ......
-
Jet Air Freight v. Jet Air Freight Delivery, Inc.
...Rockmatt Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 41; Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 774; Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 199; see also United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. (1966), 384 U.S. 394, 421--422, 86 S.Ct. 1......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Odoms
...Freight Delivery, Inc., 264 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 267 So.2d 833 (Fla.1972). See also Carol City Utilities v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, 165 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). It is generally held that a determination by a worker's compensation tribunal that an employer/employe......