Himes v. Brown & Co. Securities Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2478,85-2478 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 104,518 So.2d 937 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 104 Joseph HIMES, Appellant, v. BROWN & COMPANY SECURITIES CORPORATION, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen Cahen, Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellant.
William P. Cagney III and Kiernan Fallon, Miami, Casner, Edward & Roseman and Walter H. Mayo III and Gregg S. Blackburn, Boston, Mass., for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Although we are strongly inclined to agree with Joseph Himes that the advertising used by Brown & Company Securities Corporation (Brown) was false as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court's final judgment entered after a bench trial because the final judgment is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
It would serve no purpose to set out all of the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that all of Himes's claims suffer from the same major defect. The trial court could justifiably find that Himes did not suffer any actual damages proximately caused by Brown's alleged violations of Florida's False Advertising Statute, section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1985), see § 817.41(6), Fla.Stat. (1985), Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, sections 501.201-. 213, Florida Statutes (1985) 1, see Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So.2d 114 (Fla.1985); § 501.211(2), Fla.Stat. (1985), or by Brown's alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, or breach of contract. See Sherban v. Richardson, 445 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (); Fryling v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 593 F.2d 736 (6th Cir.1979) (); Moody v. Bache & Co., 570 F.2d 523 (5th Cir.1978) ().
In addition to his claims arising out of Brown's false advertising, Himes claims to have suffered damages as a result of two missed opportunities: Brown's mishandling of a short sale request and Brown's refusal to take and execute Himes' order to purchase Eastern warrants. In Florida, unless the fact-finder is presented with evidence which will enable it to determine damages for lost profits with a reasonable degree of certainty, rather than by means of speculation and conjecture, the claimant may not recover such damages. Crain Automotive Group, Inc. v. J & M Graphics, Inc., 427 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Beverage Canners, Inc. v. Cott Corp., 372 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bluevack, Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 331 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Royal Typewriter Co. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., 719 F.2d 1092, 1105 (11th Cir.1983); Center Chemical Co. v. Avril, Inc., 392 F.2d 289 (5th Cir.1968). Since Himes did not suffer any out-of-pocket damages, the trial court properly denied him recovery because his claimed damages for lost profits are speculative. His only claim is that Brown's actions deprived him of anticipated profits because he would have sold (or purchased, in the case of the short sale) the securities at the optimal time and earned a profit. According to Himes, had Brown correctly completed his requested transactions, he would have then sold the Eastern warrants at closing on the same day that he purchased them and completed the short sale nine months later, thereby earning a profit on both transactions. Himes did not present any evidence which would prove that he would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No.11md2258 AJB (MDD)
...relating to the disclosure of their Personal Information, these allegations fail under Florida law. See Himes v. Brown & Co. Secs. Corp., 518 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (finding no recovery under FDUTPA for misleading and false advertisement where plaintiff sustained no out-......
-
Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc.
...of plaintiffs stock sales in some indefinite manner as too speculative to state a claim for damages]; Himes v. Brown & Co. Securities Corp. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) 518 So.2d 937, 938-939 [holding that lack of evidence indicating when plaintiff would have sold the stock renders his claim of d......
-
Alphamed Pharmaceuticals v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals
...Cibran Enterprises, Inc. v. BP Products N. Am., Inc., 365 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1254 n. 2 (S.D.Fla.2005) (quoting Himes v. Brown & Co. Sec. Corp., 518 So.2d 937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)); HGI Associates, Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867, 879 (11th Cir.2005)(quoting Sostchin v. Doll Enter......
-
In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
...relating to the disclosure of their Personal Information, these allegations fail under Florida law. See Himes v. Brown & Co. Secs. Corp., 518 So.2d 937, 938 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (finding no recovery under FDUTPA for misleading and false advertisement where plaintiff sustained no out-of-po......
-
The florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act and other florida consumer protection laws
...v. Sheffield Auto & Truck Service, Inc ., 422 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). But see Himes v. Brown & Company Securities Corp ., 518 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (lost profits not recoverable with respect to claims under DUTPA and Florida false advertising statute, Fla. Stat. ......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...that Appellant had to plead and prove actual damages in order to bring a FDUTPA claim is flawed.”); Himes v. Brown & Co. Sec. Corp., 518 So. 2d 937, 939 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (“the legislature . . . has decided to leave the enforcement of those statutes in Position 139 1602567 ABA-......