Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Fla., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1965
• Docket Number: No. 64-94,64-94
• Citation: 172 So.2d 250
• Parties: OLIN'S, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. AVIS RENTAL CAR SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 250

172 So.2d 250

OLIN'S, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. AVIS RENTAL CAR SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 64-94.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1965.

Achor & Achor, Miami, for appellant.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been before this court and other courts on numerous occasions. Basically, the present appeal involves a partial final decree awarding the appellee damages and reserving jurisdiction for an accounting.

We will not attempt here to summarize all of the fectual background of the dispute which has generated so much litigation between these parties. Suffice it to say that appellee had a contract with the Port Authority to supply rental automobiles at Miami International Airport to the traveling public, which contract, through extensions, was to expire on or about November 12, 1958. The appellee, based upon its contract with the Port Authority, entered into an agency agreement with the appellant, in which the appellant was to provide the services and rental cars required of the appellee under its contract with the Port Authority. This agreement contained a negative restrictive covenant on appellant's part '* * * not to solicit a contract with said airport [Port Authority], county commission, or anyone in authority in connection with said airport contract, directly or indirectly, either at this time or at any time during the life of Avis' contract and any extensions thereof during the life of this contract * * *.'

During the early part of September, 1957, the appellant notified the appellee in writing that it intended to and was submitting a bid to the Port Authority for a contract to supply rental automobiles at International Airport to become effective upon the expiration of appellee's contract with the Port Authority. Shortly thereafter, the appellee notified the appellant in writing that its intended bid for the airport contract was a direct violation of the contract between the parties. The appellant did submit such a bid to the Port Authority and was successful. The appellee thereupon terminated its contract with the appellant, effective December 15, 1957, advising appellant that it [appellee] would take over servicing of the contract with the Port Authority on that date. When the appellant refused to vacate the airport and permit the appellee to begin discharging its contractual obligations with the Port Authority, an action was begun in the Circuit Court of Dade County by the appellee for declaratory and other relief.

After a myriad of legal skirmishes, including appeals to this court and the Supreme Court of Florida, the cause eventually wound up before the chancellor for trial, both parties stipulating that the cause could be tried without a jury. After hearing testimony and receiving evidence from the respective parties, the court entered the decree awarding damages in favor of the appellee. This appeal followed.

The appellant has posed three points which it contends require a reversal of the decree, i. e., (1) whether the damages awarded for 'stand by' expenses were such as were legally recoverable and/or were in contemplation of the parties to the contract; (2) whether the negative restrictive covenant on the part of the appellant was against public policy, in restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable; and (3) whether appellee could impose the negative covenant beyond the life of its contract with the Port Authority.

We pause here to note that as to points 2 and 3, appellee contends that they have already been decided adverse to the appellant on previous appeals decided by this court. See Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 497, and Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 594. Our examination of the records of this court in 125 So.2d 594, discloses that these two points were raised, argued and determined adverse...