Moses v. Autuono

• Decision Date: 08 December 1908
• Citation: 47 So. 925,56 Fla. 499
• Parties: MOSES v. AUTUONO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

47 So. 925

56 Fla. 499

MOSES v. AUTUONO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

December 8, 1908

Headnotes Filed December 19, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

Action by V. M. Autuono against Mary L. Moses. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a contract expressly provides stipulated or liquidated damages for a particular breach of the contract, and the breach alleged is not the one provided for or contemplated in fixing the measure of damages, the loss, if any, sustained by the plaintiff because of the alleged breach of the contract should be determined, not by the stipulation contained in the contract, but by the law.

Under a general allegation of damages in an action on a contract such damages as the law holds to be the direct, natural, and necessary result of the breach complained of may be recovered. Special damages are those that do not necessarily but do directly, naturally, and proximately result from the breach, and they may be recovered in proper cases on sufficient allegations and proofs.

For a breach of a contract to lease lands and tenements, the law contemplates compensation for losses that are the natural and proximate result of the breach. In general the measure of damages is the difference between the stipulated rent and the value of the use of the premises.

In an action for a breach of a contract for the lease of lands and tenements, under special circumstances warranting it, damages may be recovered for losses that are the natural, direct, and necessary consequences of the breach when such damages are capable of being estimated by reliable data, and are such as should reasonably have been contemplated by the parties.

When an action for breach of a contract to lease lands and tenements is brought, if the plaintiff by reasonable exertions or care could have prevented damages resulting to him by reason of the defendant's breach of the contract, he cannot recover therefor.

Where liquidated damages are stipulated for to compensate for failure to complete a contract, such liquidated damages may not be applicable where there is a refusal to perform any part of the contract, when it is apparent that the parties in stipulating for liquidated damages did not contemplate such refusal, but only a failure to complete the contract within a specified time.

COUNSEL E. R. Gunby and Glen & Himes, for plaintiff in error.

Sparkman & Carter and Geo. P. Raney, Jr., for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The defendant in error on January 7, 1907, brought an action in the circuit court for Hillsborough county against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for the breach of a contract dated April 9, 1906, whereby the defendant here agreed to 'at once commence the construction and to complete with reasonable time and dispatch a three-story brick building,' equipped in a specified manner, on certain lots in the city of Tampa, and to lease the same to the plaintiff for five years beginning October 1, 1906, at a monthly rental of $200 in advance, with the privilege of renewing the lease for another five years at a rental to be agreed on. The contract made a part of the declaration contains the following provision: 'It is further agreed that if the said party of the first part shall not complete and turn over to the party of the second part said three-story brick building by the first day of October, A. D. 1906, then the said party of the first part shall pay to the party of the second part the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars for each day thereafter until said building is completed, and turned over to the said party of the second part,' provided general strikes did not interfere.

The declaration alleges 'that the defendant, regardless of her duty and legal obligation to the plaintiff, has failed wholly to keep said agreement, and has not even commenced the construction of said building, and on May 9, 1906, duly notified the plaintiff that it would be impossible for him to build and complete said building, and that he (meaning the plaintiff) could govern himself accordingly.' Plaintiff claims $20,000 damages.

A demurrer to the declaration was overruled. Pleas tendering issues as to the damages sustained by the plaintiff were stricken or demurrers thereto sustained, and the court entered the following judgment: 'It is considered by the court that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was one for the breach of which the damages were by agreement liquidated; and, second, that the contract was an entire one, and that upon an entire breach of it the plaintiff was entitled to recover both past and prospective damages in this suit. It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the demurrer to said pleas be and the same is hereby sustained; and, the defendant having announced in open court that she did not desire to further plead, final judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount of liquidated damages set out in the declaration, to wit, eighteen thousand ($18,000.00) dollars which judgment is based solely upon the contract annexed to the declaration, and without the introduction of evidence except the written pleadings. It is thereupon considered by the court that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendant his damages of eighteen thousand ($18,000.00)...