City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc.

Decision Date13 June 1967
Docket NumberNo. 66-596,66-596
Citation200 So.2d 583
PartiesCITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CHAMPIONSHIP SPORTS, INC., a Massachusetts corporation and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, a Maryland corporation, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty. and Melvin F. Frankel, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Sponder & Bloom, North Miami, for Championship Sports, Inc.

Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Joseph Jennings, Miami, for Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

The City of Miami Beach appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, Championship Sports, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as Surety, in a jury trial for breach of a lease.

Championship Sports, Inc. entered into a lease with the City of Miami Beach to rent the Miami Beach Convention Hall for the purpose of world heavyweight championship boxing 'and for no other purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the lessor endorsed on this lease for the term of one day.' The lessee agreed to pay Ten Thousand Dollars flat rental payable on the night of the event. Clause 18 of the lease reads as follows:

'If the lessee, being entitled to possession hereunder, shall fail for any reason to take possession, no rent refund shall be made and the full rent called for by this lease, including any disbursements or expenses incurred by lessor in connection therewith, shall be payable by the lessee to the lessor, as liquidated damages, and not by way of penalty.'

As a condition to the execution of the lease, a performance bond of Ten Thousand Dollars was furnished by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.

The fight between the then world heavy-weight champion, Sonny Liston, and his opponent, Floyd Patterson, was originally scheduled for April 4, 1963 and the hall was rented for that day. The fight was rescheduled for April 10, 1963, and the parties to the lease consented to change the lease to that day.

Some time prior to the date set for the fight, the Miami Beach Boxing Commission was informed that Sonny Liston had returned to Chicago, Illinois to rest his knee and to be treated by physicians. According to its rules and regulations, the Commission ordered Sonny Liston to return to Miami Beach to be examined by a physician appointed by the Commission.

Following the examination, a letter dated March 20, 1963, signed by the two examining physicians, was forwarded to the Commission which reads:

'The undersigned have, on this day examined Sonny Liston with particular regard to his left knee. We have found unmistakable evidence of injury to the mesial semi-lunar cartilage and feel that it would be unwise for him to participate in the championship heavyweight boxing match scheduled for April 10, 1963.

'In addition, it is our opinion that this knee should have the benefit of a surgical procedure and that, if such is done, a period of at least six months should elapse before he might be in shape to indulge in any scheduled boxing match.'

Based upon this advice, the Commission postponed the fight and requested that the World Boxing Association place Sonny Liston on the ill and unavailable list. The City of Miami Beach which had sold tickets to the fight refunded all monies collected.

The vice president and general manager of Championship Sports, Inc., testified that no request was made to change the lease again to another date because by refunding the money on advance sales the City was not postponing the fight but cancelling it. There is evidence in the record that the fight did take place at some future date in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The parties on appeal argue the concept of impossibility of performance due to the injury to the principal contestant, Sonny Liston, and due to the interference of one of the parties, i.e., the City's refusal to allow Sonny Liston to fight. However, neither of the promised performances ever became impossible. Championship Sports, Inc., covenanted to pay rent and the City promised to convey a lease-hold property interest and delivery of possession.

The real issue is whether the frustration of Championship Sports' ultimate object in taking the lease caused by a disabling injury to Sonny Liston operated as a discharge of its duty to pay rent?

Championship Sports contends that the City itself caused the supervening event that frustrated its purpose by refusing to permit Sonny Liston to fight with knowledge that this was the only purpose of obtaining the lease. Thus, it is alleged that the City as lessor, can not be heard to demand damages for refusal to pay rent.

It is true that if one of the parties wilfully or negligently caused material frustration of purpose then that party should bear the burden of the loss. 1 We can not, however, agree that the City caused the frustration of purpose.

The law of the State of Florida under which the lease was drawn and which lessee agreed to comply with requires that it be certified by a physician that the boxer is physically...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Assocs., LLC
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2013
    ...was reasonably foreseeable and one defendant could have contracted against it); see also City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc., 200 So.2d 583, 586–87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967) (holding a lessee liable for rent in the absence of evidence that a disabling injury to a boxer was unantic......
  • Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC v. Bre Mariner Conway Crossings, LLC
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 2017
    ...Inc. v. Aero – Flight Serv., Inc. , 712 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc. , 200 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) ). Generally, foreseeability in the context of contractual defenses is an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. See Wal......
  • Lee v. Bowlerama Enterprises, Inc., 78-793
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1979
    ...158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696 (1947); Donelly v. Marriott Corp., 266 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc., 200 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); City of Tampa v. City of Port Tampa, 127 So.2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); and cf. Hamilton v. Title Insurance Agen......
  • American Aviation, Inc. v. Aero-Flight Service, Inc., AERO-FLIGHT
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 1998
    ...and the absence of such a provision gives rise to the inference that the risk was assumed. See City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc., 200 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The court's finding indicates that the trial court believed there was an actual blacklisting of the engine since......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT