Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales

Decision Date07 October 1949
Citation44 So.2d 641
PartiesKUHARSKE et al. v. LAKE COUNTY CITRUS SALES, Inc., et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Sidney M. Lippmann, Orlando, for appellants.

John F. Cherry, Leesburg, and J. W. & W. B. Hunter, Tavares, for appellees.

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellants instituted a law action in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract for the purchase and sale of certain grapefruit.The appellants were the growers and the appellee, Lake County Citrus Sales, Inc., a Florida corporation, was the packer and purchaser of the citrus fruit.

The contract which was entered into by the growers and packer contained the following pertinent provisions:

'The Buyer has this day advanced to the Grower the sum of $4,000.00 the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the grower, which sum is a guarantee fund to assure performance of this contract on the terms and at the prices herein stated.All fruit at the prices aforesaid shall be paid for from time to time as the fruit is picked, or within ten (10) days thereafter.Should Buyer fail to comply with the terms and conditions herein enumerated, this contract shall thereafter become null and void and the advances made to Grower shall be retained by said Grower as liquidated damages.

'It is agreed that the guarantee fund hereby receipted is to be deducted from said payments as follows: The advance to be deducted from the final settlement.'

The purchaser picked and paid for several thousand boxes of said grapefruit at the contract price.Subsequently, and before the entire crop of merchantable fruit was picked, the freeze of February 6, 1947 struck the citrus belt and an embargo was immediately imposed which was not lifted until February 18, 1947.Between February 21st and February 25th of that year the purchaser spot-picked 1995 boxes of fruit which at the agreed price of $2.10 per box amounted to $4,189.50.Thereupon, the purchaser deducted from said amount the deposit of $4,000.00 and tendered to appellants check in the sum of $189.50.

Subsequently, a quantity of fruit was sold by appellants to another shipper and then appellants filed a petition before the Commissioner of Agriculture contending in said petition that the appelleeLake County Citrus Sales, Inc., had breached its contract.After a hearing the Commissioner of Agriculture issued his order decreeing that appellants were entitled to retain the $4,000.00 deposited as a guarantee fund and ordering said appellee to pay unto appellants the sum of $4,189.50 for the purchase of the boxes of grapefruit last picked by the purchaser.Upon the failure of Lake County Citrus Sales, Inc., to comply with the Commissioner's order appellants brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida.

The trial court held, as a matter of law, that the contract provided for liquidated damages in the event of a breach and that said clause in said contract was not a penalty.The trial judge instructed the jury that 'if you determine liability from the evidence that the utmost damages that the defendant could be liable under this contract, if you believe he is liable, and has been guilty of a breach of the contract, would be the sum of $4000.00, the deposit which he made, and which they agreed was the liquidated damages.* * * So, therefore, if you consider from the evidence that there has been a breach of this contract in the failure of the defendant to carry [it] out the utmost damages that you can award would be the additional sum of $4189.50 because of the fact that the amount of the oranges picked off, and for which the plaintiff is entitled to payment, comes to that sum.* * * I am charging you that $4189.50 plus interest is the limit you can bring in.That is the maximum.'

The jury found for the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • Grant v. Wester
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 Septiembre 1996
    ...least the amount received. McMullen v. Fort Pierce Fin. & Constr. Co., 108 Fla. 492, 146 So. 567 (1933). See also Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales, 44 So.2d 641 (Fla.1949); Brown v. Epstein, 208 So.2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA Dance v. Tatum, 629 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla.1993); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl......
  • Gaines v. Nortrust Realty Management, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 Noviembre 1982
    ...that there must be mutuality of agreement, and there can be no such mutuality when there is no common intention. Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales, 44 So.2d 641 (Fla.1949). See also Hewitt v. Price, 222 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Settlement agreements are to be interpreted by and are ......
  • Kinnon v. Arcoub, Gopman & Associates, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 29 Junio 2007
    ...172 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (per curiam) (discussing termination of contract by abandonment); Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales, 44 So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 1950) (same). That Gopman sought to enforce putative contractual rights against Kinnon at the time the discrimination occurre......
  • Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler, s. 64-487
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 Febrero 1965
    ...their actions] indicate an abandonment of its terms. See: Rosenthal v. Largo Land Co., 146 Fla. 81, 200 So. 233; Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales, Fla.1949, 44 So.2d 641; 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, § 165; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 484. It is apparent from the course of conduct of these par......
  • Get Started for Free

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