Fred Howland, Inc. v. Hollywood Tile & Terrazzo Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1151,1151 |
| Citation | 207 So.2d 700 |
| Parties | FRED HOWLAND, INC., Appellant, v. HOLLYWOOD TILE AND TERRAZZO COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Knight, of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellant.
Curtin R. Coleman, of Coleman, Leonard, Morse & Morrison, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of a suit for damages filed by the plaintiff-appellee, Hollywood Tile and Terrazzo Company, in the Court of Record for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff performed a contract with the defendant, Fred Howland, Inc., under which the plaintiff was obligated to construct a terrazzo stairway and two terrazzo floors in a building which was being built by the defendant as a general contractor. The contract price for the plaintiff's work was $4,875.00 to which $187.50 had been added for an extra.
Shortly after the trial commenced, it became apparent that the plaintiff had not completed the performance of its contract as alleged in the complaint. By an informal amendment to the complaint, to which no objection was made, the issue actually tried was whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis for its work under the contract.
The case was tried without a jury. At the conclusion the trial court entered an order finding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a money judgment in the amount of $3,697.50 to which was added an attorney's fee 1 based on an express provision in the contract. A final judgment was then entered and, following the denial of a post trial motion for a new trial, the defendant filed this appeal assigning as error the entry of the final judgment for the plaintiff.
Although there is conflict in the evidence, it is our opinion that there is competent substantial evidence in the record from which the trial court could have concluded that the plaintiff was prevented from completely performing its contract by defects in forms, which under the terms of the contract the defendant was required to furnish in place. There was also competent substantial evidence in the record from which the trial court could have concluded that the reasonable value of the labor performed and the market value of the materials furnished was $3,697.50.
Where a party to a contract prevents full performance of that contract by the other party, the innocent party may recover damages on several theories. Where the performance prevented, as in this case, involves the furnishing of labor and materials...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Mickler
...to as being too speculative, Wood, alternatively, seeks compensation in quantum meruit, citing Fred Howland, Inc. v. Hollywood Tile and Terrazzo Company, 207 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) and E.A. Strout Farm Agency v. DeForest, 192 A.D. 790, 183 N.Y.S. 119 (1920) for the proposition that o......
-
Robinson v. Albanese
...348 (Fla.1986); Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Associates, Inc., 243 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Fred Howland, Inc. v. Hollywood Tile & Terrazzo Co., 207 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 214 So.2d 621 ...
-
Dean v. Blank, 72-42
...damages is the reasonable value of the labor performed and the market value of the materials furnished. Fred Howland, Inc. v. Hollywood Tile & Terrazzo Co., Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 700. The vital elements to be proved by plaintiff in order to establish a prima facie case are the performance......
-
Howland v. Hollywood Tile and Terrazzo Co.
...621 Fred HOWLAND v. HOLLYWOOD TILE AND TERRAZZO CO. No. 37287. Supreme Court of Florida. July 1968. Certiorari denied without opinion. 207 So.2d 700. ...