Continental Video Corp. v. Honeywell, Inc.
Decision Date | 12 October 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-1978,81-1978 |
Citation | 422 So.2d 35 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL VIDEO CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Honeywell Protection Services, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer & Weil and Bruce A. Christensen and Charles E. Buker, III and Larry S. Stewart, Miami, for appellant.
Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and G. William Bissett, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and JORGENSON, JJ.
A monitoring service was available for a modest charge, plus a telephone charge, billed directly to the customer. 1 Continental elected to have this service from Honeywell. Upon activation of the alarm a signal was to be sent to one of Honeywell's central monitoring stations and that upon receipt of the alarm Honeywell was to transmit the alarm to the police and notify Continental Video's representative by phone. Burglars broke into Continental's store and tripped the alarm. Honeywell allegedly did not notify the police or Continental's agent upon receipt of the alarm. As a result of the loss incurred Continental filed the instant complaint alleging breach of contract; negligence; and gross negligence on the part of Honeywell. The complaint also attacked the exculpatory clause of the contract as being invalid, void and unenforceable because it was a contract of adhesion due to the inequality of bargaining powers of the parties and that the contract is against public policy. Honeywell moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: (1) it fails to state a cause of action; (2) the exculpatory clause in the contract relieves Honeywell of any and all liability; and (3) any liability incurred by Honeywell is limited by the liquidation of damages clause.
The trial court entered an order dismissing the cause with prejudice finding that both the exculpatory and liquidated damage clauses were valid and enforceable.
We find no merit in the argument of the inequity of bargaining. First Financial Insurance Co. v. Purolator Security, Inc., 69 Ill.App.3d 413, 26 Ill.Dec. 393, 388 N.E.2d 17 (1979); Lazy Bug Shops, Inc., v. American District Telegraph Co., 374 So.2d 183 (La.Ct.App.1979); Abel Holding Co., Inc. v. American District Telegraph Company, 138 N.J.Super. 137, 350 A.2d 292 (1975). We do not find that the contract was against public policy. Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem, 116 Ariz. 74, 567 P.2d 1203 (1977); First Financial Insurance Co., v. Purolator Security, Inc., supra; Pick Fisheries, Inc. v. Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., 35 Ill.App.3d 467, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duty Free Expo, Inc. v. Protect Services Industries, Inc., 90-1278
...So.2d 114 (Fla.1985); Mankap Enter., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Serv., 427 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Continental Video Corp. v. Honeywell, Inc., 422 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 456 So.2d 892 (Fla.1984); Ace Formal Wear, Inc. v. Baker Protective Serv., Inc., 416 So.2d 8 (F......