Florida State Turnpike Authority v. Industrial Const. Co., 2475
| Decision Date | 27 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2475,2475 |
| Citation | 133 So.2d 115 |
| Parties | FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gilbert A. Smith, Tampa, for appellant.
Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Florida State Turnpike Authority, defendant below, appeals from adverse final decree entered by the chancellor in a declaratory action. By the decree, defendant was ordered to pay to plaintiff contractor certain sums for work performed by plaintiff, determined by the chancellor to have been outside the scope of plaintiff's contractual responsibility.
Plaintiff, having been awarded three contracts to build bridges for defendant upon the Sunshine State Parkway, duly performed its contractual obligations as to the major aspects of the work undertaken. During construction however, defendant through its engineer notified plaintiff that certain concrete piers exposed to public view would have to be given a 'Class 2' finish. Plaintiff, agreeing, notified defendant that it would claim extra compensation, since the work had not been contemplated in the bidding and, under plaintiff's interpretation, was not within the purview of the contracts. The work was completed satisfactorily, but the authority denied plaintiff's claim for additional compensation
Defendant, by its appeal points, urges that a general release executed by plaintiff as to the contract designated 2.3 bars recovery of extra payment relative to that contract and also that, notwithstanding this, the work was covered by the specifications and incorporated into all of the contracts, if not directly, then under custom and usage. At this juncture it may be interpolated that there is no evidentiary basis upon which could be premised the custom and usage rule contended for by defendant.
At a meeting of the authority with representatives of plaintiff present, the parties agreed that court action rather than arbitration would be the better method of settling the dispute. In order that payment upon the bulk of the work accomplished would not be held up, general counsel for defendant, upon inquiry by plaintiff, indicated that plaintiff could sign final releases and receive payment, if the signing was accompanied by a reservation in the matter of the pier finishing. This was incorporated by defendant's secretary into the minutes of the meeting. Subsequently, a letter from the chief engineer of the authority to plaintiff set out that, if plaintiff would execute valid releases as to the three bridge contracts, defendant would make payment of the final amounts due, with the understanding that any claim for Class 2 finishing would not be covered under the releases. The releases were duly executed, and payment upon the contracts was made to plaintiff. Although the release here concerned as to contract 2.3 contains no reference to the claim for extra compensation, it does not operate as a discharge because of the specific understanding that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berloni S.P.A. v. Della Casa, LLC
...4th DCA 2005). The language of an agreement is to be construed most strongly against its drafter. Fla. State Tpk. Auth. v. Indus. Constr. Co., 133 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). Della Casa drafted the partial releases, and they contained the following For and in consideration of the pay......
-
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC v. Fla. Power & Light Co., DA 21-1002
... ... Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida, Complainant, v. Florida Power & Light ... However, it did state ... that, if a joint use agreement was ... "); ... Fla. State Turnpike Assoc'n v. Industrial ... Construction Co ... "); Hillsborough Cnty Aviation Authority ... v. Cone Bros. Contracting , 285 So.2d ... ...
-
Bouden v. Walker
...such language should be construed against the party who drew the contract or chose the wording, Florida State Turnpike Authority v. Industrial Construction Company, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 115; Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 298; 7 Fl......
-
Sorrels Steel Co., Inc. v. Great Southwest Corp., 89-4314
...releases. We disagree. The intent of the parties controls the effect of a release. See, e.g., Florida State Turnpike Auth. v. Industrial Const. Co., 133 So.2d 115, 116-17 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961) (allowing recovery of extra compensation on construction contract despite a general release). Whe......