Gulf American Land Corp. v. Wain, 63-648
| Decision Date | 11 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-648,63-648 |
| Citation | 166 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | GULF AMERICAN LAND CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Harry WAIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard R. Hirsch, Miami, for appellant.
Nat L. Williams, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HORTON, JJ.
This appeal is from a final judgment based upon an adverse jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of a written contract. 1
The appellant's answer to the complaint admitted the termination of the contract prior to the one-year period provided, but denied that anything was due appellee under the contract. Upon the conclusion of the appellee's case in chief, and again when all the testimony and evidence had been produced, the appellant moved for directed verdicts, both of which were denied. The cause then went to the jury resulting in a verdict for the appellee. The appellant then filed a motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto. This motion was denied and the judgment appealed was entered.
Although the appellant has made six assignments of error, we are of the view that only two of these assignments have been preserved for appellate review. They are that the trial judge erred (1) in denying the appellant's motions for directed verdict, and (2) in denying the appellant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. We affirm.
In substance the appellant argues that since the contract does not reveal a duty on its part to do the things which the appellee contends appellant failed, neglected or refused to do, that the court should have concluded as a matter of law that there had been no breach of the contract and therefore should have entered judgment for the appellant. The appellant cites the well recognized rule from Winter Garden Citrus Growers Association v. Willits, 113 Fla. 131, 151 So. 509, that
The main thrust of the appellee's complaint was that appellant had failed, neglected and refused to furnish him information which would permit him to discharge his duties under the contract. The appellant does, in our view, come within the rule that when a person contracts for the doing of a certain thing with another, he impliedly promises that he will not himself do anything to hinder or obstruct the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amoco Oil Co. v. Gomez
...are generally considered to be a breach of the contract, although not specified and delineated in the written instrument." Gulf Am. Land Corp., 166 So.2d at 764. According to Gomez's first affirmative defense, Amoco cannot assert a breach of contract claim against her because it prevented h......
-
Zim v. Western Pub. Co., 75-3776
... ... Guides of the creatures that dwell on dry land, cattle, and creeping things, (INSECTS) (INSECT ... Conrad Milwaukee Corp. v. Wasilewski, supra, 141 N.W.2d at 244. 10 ... 380, 78 N.W.2d 763 (1956); James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953) ... Land ... Page 1325 ... Corp. v. Wain, 166 So.2d 763 (Fla.App.1964); George v. Oswald, ... ...
-
County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc.
...has (a) an implied obligation not to do anything to hinder or obstruct performance by the other person, Gulf American Land Corporation v. Wain, 166 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), (b) an implied obligation not to knowingly delay unreasonably the performance of duties assumed under the co......
-
Wallace v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
...freight to appellants violated the implied duty of good faith, fair dealing and commercial reasonableness.”); Gulf Am. Land Corp. v. Wain, 166 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964) (“The main thrust of the appellee's complaint was that appellant had failed, neglected, and refused to furnish......
-
When the king does wrong: failing to fulfill implied duties.
...698, a) an implied obligation not to do anything to hinder or obstruct performance by the other person, Gulf American Land Corp. v. Wain, 166 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1964); b) nor to knowingly delay unreasonably the performance of duties assumed under the contract, Southern Gulf Utilitie......
-
The "no damage for delay" clause: a public policy issue.
...an implied obligation not to do anything to hinder or obstruct performance by the other person, Gulf American Land Corporation v. Wain, 166 So. 2d 763,764 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1964); b) an implied obligation not to knowingly delay unreasonably the performance of duties assumed under the contract......