Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County

Decision Date07 April 1953
Citation65 So.2d 729
PartiesHAMILTON CONST. CO. .v BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellant.

Edward F. Boardman and Boardman, Bolles & Kates, Miami, for appellees.

DREW, Justice.

On May 1, 1951, Hamilton Construction Co., hereafter called the contractor, entered into a written agreement with the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida, hereafter called the owner, to construct two school buildings. At the time this contract was entered into the litigation which resulted in the opinion of this Court in the case of Carpenters' District Council, etc. v. Miami Chapter of Associated General Contractors, etc., 55 So.2d 794, was pending. The contract provided the minimum wage scale of all employees under the contract except carpenters and floor layers. Because of the uncertainty of the wage scale of these craftsmen created by the action of the Local Council and the resulting litigation above described, a special clause was inserted in the contract reading as follows:

'Art. A-49 Schedule of Minimum Wages

'(a) Recommended by the Construction Industry Council of Dade County, 1113 Congress Building, Miami, Florida.

'(b) There shall be paid each employee engaged in work under this Contract at the site of the project in the trade or occupation listed on attached sheet, not less than the wage rate set opposite the same. (Refer to the Wage Scale Sheet attached to these General Conditions.)

'Official Construction Wage Rates Dade County, Florida.

'In Force Until Midnight March 31, 1951

'Carpenters (Foremen-add 12 1/2cents or 25cents per hour--see Trade Rules 2.06 1/4'

'The following addition shall be made to the section entitled 'Official Construction Wage Rates Dade County, Florida'.

'This wage scale shall be effective as of January 1, 1951, with the exception of the classifications of Carpenters and Floor Layers.

'Since no decision has reached this office as of this date, the wages paid to Carpenters and Floor Layers will be handled in the following manner:

"The wage scale referred to does not include wage scale for Carpenters and Floor Layers; the wage scale of $2.06 1/4 per hour and $2.10 per hour respectively for these trades is to be used. The Contract will provide for the payment by the Owner to the Contractor of any wages paid to Carpenters and Floor Layers at a rate in excess of $2.06 1/4 per hour and $2.10 per hour respectively, provided that the amount so paid in excess of $2.06 1/4 $2.10 per hour, respectively, is paid on a prevailing wage scale at the time so paid. That is to say, a wage scale that has been agreed upon by the Carpenters and the Floor Layers on one hand, and the various Contractors and Builders Associations on the other hand, and provided further that the Owner shall be furnished proof satisfactory to it of the payment of any increased wages, which proof shall consist of time not necessarily limited to signed payroll sheets, the privilege of inspecting the original and copies of Federal and State Unemployment Tax Refunds and original and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • International Erectors v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & R. Serv.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 18, 1968
    ... ... Bielecki, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 604; Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, ... ...
  • Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, L.L.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 11, 2002
    ...give effect to the plain language of contracts when that language is clear and unambiguous. See Hamilton Const. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1953). Whether a contract provision is ambiguous is a question for the court. See Strama v. Union Fid. Life I......
  • In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2013
    ...used.SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES FOR 416.15 1. This principle is well-established under Florida law. Hamilton Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Dade Cnty., 65 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1953); Langley v. Owens, 52 Fla. 302, 42 So. 457, 460 (1906); Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff–Trail......
  • Homes & Land Affiliates v. Homes & Loans Magazine
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • February 4, 2009
    ...and unambiguous." Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228, 1246 (11th Cir.2002) (citing Hamilton Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1953)). Here, the only right created by the plain language of the contract gives Plaintiff the right to re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT