Flintkote Co. v. Brewer Co. of Fla.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--695,68--695 |
| Citation | 221 So.2d 784 |
| Parties | The FLINTKOTE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. The BREWER CO. OF FLORIDA, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Asphalt Paving Company, a division of Gulf Coast Paving Co., Inc., a Mississippi corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Feibelman, Friedman, Hyman & Britton, Miami, for appellant.
Quinton, Leib, Parks & Aurell, Miami, for appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellee, the Brewer Company of Florida, Inc., entered into a contract with the United States Air Force to make certain repairs to airplane landing strips and taxi areas at Homestead, Florida, Air Force Base. The appellant Flintkote Company had quoted Brewer a price of 53 or 54 cents per gallon for a required tar-rubber binder material, but no contract for the purchase thereof was made between Brewer and Flintkote.
Brewer entered into a subcontract with the appellee Asphalt Paving Company to supply, mix and install the rubberized binding according to specifications called for in the main contract, and in connection therewith Brewer requested that Asphalt give consideration to Flintkote in obtaining the material in question.
Asphalt (the subcontractor) and Flintkote entered into an oral purchase contract for (approximately) 80,000 Gallons of the material at a price of 49.7 cents per gallon. Thereafter it was learned that the Flintkote product would not meet one of the essential specifications for such material, of which specification Flintkote had previously been made aware. The Air Force refused a request forwarded by Flintkote for waiver of such specification. Flintkote, unable to perform, defaulted. Thereupon, Brewer, the general contractor, purchased the required material elsewhere. The quantity thus acquired and used on the job was 84,027 gallons. The amount expended therefor by Brewer exceeded the Asphalt-Flintkote contract price by $9,747.13. See § 672.2--712 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Both Brewer and Asphalt sued Flintkote for recovery of the excess cost. The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment was entered in favor of both plaintiffs for the said amount plus interest. Flintkote appealed.
Appellant contends the record fails to show a contract between it and either Brewer or Asphalt. On examination of the record we conclude that the alleged contract between Asphalt and Flintkote was clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York
...Electric Corporation, 122 So.2d 499 (Fla.App.2d, 1960) (materialman as third party beneficiary); Flintkote Company v. Brewer Co. of Florida, 221 So.2d 784 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969) (materialman); Mugge v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 52 Fla. 371, 42 So. 81 (1906); Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fl......
-
Midwest Dredging Co. v. McAninch Corp.
...equity or justice in light of the nature of the construction industry have guided their decisions. See, e.g., Flintkote Co. v. Brewer Co., 221 So.2d 784 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); County of Giles v. First U.S. Corp., 445 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.1969); Comment, Contracts. Other courts have found third......
-
Duke v. Hoch
...with plenary rights under the policy. Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852 (Fla.1938).11 Cf. Flintkote Co. v. Brewer Co., 221 So.2d 784, 785 (Fla.Ct.App.), review denied, 225 So.2d 920 (Fla.1969). The duty to reveal conflicts of interest has its roots in the relationship ......
-
FW Eversley & Co., Inc. v. East NY Non-Profit HDFC, Inc.
...F.2d 1048 (3d Cir. 1970); County of Giles v. First U.S. Corp., 223 Tenn. 345, 445 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.1969); Flintkote Co. v. Brewer Co. of Florida, Inc., 221 So.2d 784 (Fla.Ct.App.1969), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 920 (Fla.1969); Thomas G. Snavely Co. v. Brown Construction Co., 16 Ohio Misc. 50,......