Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 01 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | PAN-AM,No. 63215,63215 |
| Citation | 471 So.2d 4 |
| Parties | TOBACCO CORPORATION, d/b/a Pan-Am Vend-Tronics, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven L. Schwarzberg of Smith & Mandler, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and James A. Peters and Walter M. Meginniss, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Parker D. Thomson of Thomson, Zeder, Bohrer, Werth, Adorno & Razook, Miami, for Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, Heating and Piping Ass'n, Inc., amicus curiae.
This cause is before the Court on a question certified to be of great public importance. Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, 425 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction.
Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. entered into a written contract with the Department of Corrections. Pan-Am was to provide vending machines in six correctional facilities. The contract provided that Department of Corrections could cancel the contract for unsatisfactory performance by Pan-Am if it gave Pan-Am sixty days' written notice and thirty days within which to correct any deficiencies. Additionally, the contract provided for liquidated damages. Department of Corrections canceled the contract on thirty days' written notice, specifying no deficiencies in Pan-Am's performance and giving no time within which to correct any deficiencies. Pan-Am brought suit on the contract and sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Pan-Am's motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and Department of Corrections counter-moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense. This motion for summary judgment was granted. Pan-Am appealed and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed but certified as a matter of great public importance the following question:
WHEN A STATE AGENCY IMPROPERLY RESCINDS AN EXPRESS EXECUTORY CONTRACT WITH A PRIVATE VENDOR WHO SUFFERS A LOSS OF PROFIT AS A CONSEQUENCE, MAY THE STATE INVOKE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AS A BAR TO AN ACTION ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT?
425 So.2d at 1172. We answer the question in the negative and quash the decision of the district court, remanding the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
In Florida, sovereign immunity is the rule, rather than the exception, as evidenced by article X, section 13 of the Florida Constitution: "Provision may be made by general law for bringing suit against the state as to all liabilities now existing or hereafter originating."
In section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1981), the legislature has explicitly waived sovereign immunity in tort. There is no analogous waiver in contract. Nonetheless, the legislature has, by general law, explicitly empowered various state agencies to enter into contracts. See e.g., §§ 23.017, 153.62(11), 163.370, 230.22(4), 337.19(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). Additionally, it has authorized certain goals and activities which can only be achieved if state agencies have the power to contract for necessary goods and services. See e.g., §§ 20.315, 945.215, Fla.Stat. (1981).
It is basic hornbook law that a contract which is not mutually enforceable is an illusory contract. Howard Cole & Co. v. Williams, 157 Fla. 851, 27 So.2d 352 (1946). Where one party retains to itself the option of fulfilling or declining to fulfill its obligations under the contract, there is no valid contract and neither side may be bound. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Orange-Crush Co., 291 F. 102 (D.Fla.1923), affirmed, 296 F. 693 (5th Cir.1924).
Respondent contends that the requirement of mutuality of remedy is satisfied by petitioner's opportunity to bring a claims bill before the legislature. This Court has recently held that subjecting oneself to the possibility of suit in a court of law is not sufficient obligation to support a contract. Stack v. Dunn, 444 So.2d 935 (Fla. 1984). We cannot now, in good conscience, hold that the chance to seek an act of grace from the legislature is sufficient remedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
...136 Colo. 19, 314 P.2d 278, 280 (1957); George & Lynch, Inc. v. State, 197 A.2d 734, 736 (Del.1964); Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla.1985); Regents of Univ. Sys. v. Blanton, 49 Ga.App. 602, 176 S.E. 673, 675 (1934); Grant Constr. Co. v. Burns, 92 Idaho......
-
Ermini v. Scott, Case No: 2:15-cv-701-FtM-99CM.
...S.Ct. 1632, 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011). "In Florida, sovereign immunity is the rule, rather than the exception." Pan–Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't of Corr., 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984) (citing Fla. Const. art. X, § 13 ). Florida has waived its immunity, however, "under circumstances in which the sta......
-
City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOT
...(deciding case on summary judgment over dissent that court was acting "largely in a factual vacuum"); Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4, 5-6 (Fla. 1984) (reversing summary judgment). While the present case is an intergovernmental dispute and the charges are auth......
-
McLaughlin v. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs.
...Zainulabeddin v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs. , 749 F. App'x 776, 786 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citing Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't of Corr. , 471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984) ). "Although Florida has generally waived immunity for torts, it has retained immunity for torts committed in bad ......
-
When the king does wrong: failing to fulfill implied duties.
...construction lawyers should have anticipated this decision when, two years earlier, PanAm Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984), was decided by the Supreme Court. Although limiting its decision to suits on express, written contracts to which a state agency ......
-
Public-private contracting in Florida survives.
...law in Florida thought the issue of state contract enforceability was put to rest in Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, ......
-
The threshold inspector.
...and (c) (1998 supplement). [16] FLA. STAT. [sections]553.79(7)(d) (1998 supplement). [17] Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dept. of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. Kevin P. Kelly is a partner at Holland & Knight, LLP, Orlando. He received his B.S. with honors from Texas A&M University and hi......