City-Wide Sanitation Co. v. City of Pembroke Pines, CITY-WIDE

• Decision Date: 09 September 1968
• Docket Number: CITY-WIDE,No. 1469,1469
• Citation: City-Wide Sanitation Co. v. City of Pembroke Pines, 214 So.2d 485 (Fla. App. 1968)
• Parties: SANITATION CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 485

214 So.2d 485

CITY-WIDE SANITATION CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 1469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 9, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1968.

R. Regis Reasbeck, of Reasbeck, Fegers & Reasbeck, Hollywood, for appellant.

Edmund S. Pendzisz, Miami, for appellee City of Pembroke Pines, Florida.

McCAIN, Judge.

Appeal is brought by the defendant, City-Wide Sanitation Co., Inc., from orders of the trial court in an action maintained by the plaintiff, City of Pembroke Pines, Florida.

By contract with plaintiff, defendant collected garbage from the residents of Pembroke Pines. The agreement contained the rates to be charged and further provided that plaintiff would handle billing and collection, retaining a ten per cent (10%) fee for this service. The contract also permitted an increase in rates in the event defendant should be subjected to additional expenses for disposal of the trash as a result of conditions beyond its control, 'particularly a change in governmental regulation with respect to disposal methods requiring incineration.' The contract then called for arbitration of any controversy over an increase in rates.

On March 22, 1965, defendant advised plaintiff by letter that Broward County would henceforth require that all garbage be incinerated. Defendant stated that because of this change it would need a 50cents increase in each account's monthly rate. Plaintiff's city council approved the request. Defendant then sent plaintiff a second letter in which it requested that the contract term be extended in order to enable defendant to purchase some needed equipment. The dialogue between the parties culminated in the signing of a second addendum to the contract.

The second addendum recited that defendant had represented that its costs had increased, extended the contract until June 30, 1970, and increased the monthly rate by fifty cents (50cents) per account. Defendant also agreed to purchase a new garbage truck and further promised to refrain from requesting any rate increase during the duration of the contract.

Subsequently plaintiff discovered that defendant was not in fact incinerating the trash. Plaintiff then brought this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its residents. In essence the complaint alleged the existence of the original contract, defendant's representations of increased costs, and the entry into the second addendum. The complaint then alleged that defendant had erroneously and wrongfully collected some $25,417.50 as a result of the rate increases, that defendant had not done what it had intended to do, that plaintiff had demanded these funds without success and that defendant had violated and breached its contract. Finally, the complaint asked for a money...