Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Fla., Inc.
Decision Date | 22 May 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 61-726,61-726 |
Citation | 141 So.2d 609 |
Parties | OLIN'S, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. AVIS RENTAL CAR SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Achor & Achor, Miami, for appellant.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahel, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is the latest in a long series of appeals involving the parties herein and the subject matter of this litigation.
We, therefore, deem it unnecessary to go into a detailed discussion of the facts of the case as they are fully reported in the previous appeals. 1
Briefly stated this case commenced in October, 1957, when Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc., (hereafter Avis) filed a complaint against Olin's, Inc., (hereafter Olin's) seeking a declaratory decree adjudicating the rights of the parties under a written contract. The plaintiff alleged in its complaint that it was in doubt as to its rights, status and other equitable or legal relations with the defendant under the terms and provisions of said contract. The particular provisions being referred to are as follows:
The case went to trial with a jury on plaintiff's second amended complaint and the defendant's answer. The issues raised by the pleadings were whether Olin's had breached its agreement with Avis and, if so, the amount of damages Avis was entitled to recover. The trial consumed almost two days during which time witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant and numerous exhibits were introduced in evidence. After all of the evidence was in and the parties had rested the plaintiff moved the court for a directed verdict. The motion was granted as to liability but given to the jury on the question of damages. The question of damages was submitted to the jury by the court without any instructions from the court. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $125,596.18. A partial final decree followed the verdict. It is from the partial final decree that this interlocutory appeal is taken. 2
The appellant, Olin's, urges several grounds for reversal. The first one we shall consider is the propriety of the trial judge's action in directing a verdict as to liability for the plaintiff. Appellant contends that the trial judge was in error in directing the verdict because he failed to consider all of the facts adduced by the defendant's witnesses as either (1) true, or (2) in the light most favorable to the defendant, or (3) resolved conflicting facts in favor of the defendant.
We have reviewed the testimony of all the witnesses together with the exhibits admitted in evidence. From such study we are convinced that the appellant's position has merit and therefore the trial judge should not have directed such verdict. The Supreme Court of Florida, in Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 821, stated at page 824:
'This Court's views have recently been recorded:
Katz v. Bear, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904.'
See Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headly, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174. See also § 54.17, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The appellant also assigned as error the trial judge's refusal to permit Olin's witnesses, Stacy Rowell and Jerome Green, to testify as to the ambiguity and doubtful effect of paragraph four of the agency contract between Avis and Olin's.
In McNair & Wade Land Co. v. Adams, 54 Fla. 550, 45 So. 492, the Supreme Court said at page 493:
* * *'
See Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 515, 33 A.L.R.2d 956.
The trial judge determined that the language used in the contract in question 3 was clear, definite and unambiguous and therefore refused to permit the parol testimony proffered by the defendant.
As the court stated in the Friedman case, supra:
'It is a cardinal rule that the construction of all written instruments, is a question of law and belongs to the courts, provided: 'the language used is clear, plain, certain, undisputed, unambiguous, unequivocable, and not subject to conflicting inferences'. * * * .'
Applying the above rule to the contract in question we are of the opinion that the trial judge was correct in excluding parol testimony proffered by the defendant.
Having reached the conclusion that the trial judge committed reversible error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the question of liability and that the cause must be reversed for a new trial we find it unnecessary for us to rule on the other questions posed here for adjudication.
Reversed for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
I concur in the judgment of reversal and the remand for new trial, but I respectfully dissent from the majority holding that it was not error to reject evidence of the intent of the parties as to the provision of the contract by which Olin agreed not to seek a concession contract from the county during the effective period of the Avis-County contract....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bucacci v. Boutin
...instrument, and that a written instrument which is intelligible on its face must control . . . ." Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car Sys. of Fla., Inc., 141 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (emphasis added). Finally, we note that if an issue of contract interpretation concerns the intent of t......
-
Easton-Babcock & Associates, Inc. v. Fernandez
...Expediters, Inc., 94 So.2d 821, 824 (Fla.1957); Bryan v. Loftin, 51 So.2d 724, 725 (Fla.1951); Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car Sys. of Florida, Inc., 141 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Marsa v. Lopez, 400 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Based upon these standards, we conclude that th......
-
Matter of Sapse
...193 (Fla.1970); Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Butler, 177 So.2d 712 (3rd DCA Fla.1965); Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc., 141 So.2d 609 (3rd DCA Fla.1962). This judicial prerogative has been recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circ......
-
Allen v. Carlotti
...Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Butler, 177 So.2d 712 (3rd Dist.Ct. Fla.App. 1965); Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car Systems of Florida, Inc., 141 So.2d 609 (3rd Dist.Ct. Fla.App.1962); Neff v. World Publishing Co., 349 F.2d 235 (8th Cir. The record reveals the following undisputed f......