Rylander v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 73--986
| Decision Date | 29 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--986,73--986 |
| Citation | 302 So.2d 478 |
| Parties | Stella RYLANDER, Appellant, v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Manuel W. James, Key West, for appellant.
Michael H. Cates, Key West, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of a final judgment for $3,581.90 entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee in this action to recover on an account stated.
In May 1968, defendant-appellant, Stella Rylander, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff-appellee, Sears Roebuck and Company, for the installation of a bathroom with all accessories, kitchen sink, refrigerator, range, lights, living room couch and living room lighting. The contract also provided for the installation of new wiring and light switches. In March 1972, plaintiff Sears filed the instant action against Ms. Rylander to recover $3,673.85 owed by her on two credit accounts with the company. In response thereto, appellant filed her answer wherein she alleged that (1) plaintiff had not credited her account with all her payments, (2) many of the items supplied by Sears were defective and had broken, (3) that appellee had charged her twice for some items, and (4) plaintiff had refused to repair the defective refrigerator and range. Defendant-appellant also counterclaimed to recover as a setoff damages for holes left by Sears when Sears' employees attempted to install air-conditioning in defendant's business premises pursuant to another contract entered into in 1969 and, as a result thereof, defendant had to expend extra money to have the installation completed. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial at the conclusion of which the trial jude entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $3,581.90 and awarded the defendant a setoff in the sum of $91.95. Defendant Ms. Rylander appeals therefrom.
Defendant-appellant first argues that the trial judge erred in construing the May 4, 1968 contract between the parties to provide that the term 'install new wiring' meant only the new wiring required to install the appliances purchased under the contract rather than all new wiring in the upstairs apartment in addition to the wiring necessary to install the appliances. We cannot agree.
In construing a contract, the intention of the parties is ascertained from the language used in the instrument and the objects to be accomplished and unless clearly erroneous,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...the parties “is ascertained from the language used in the instrument and the objects to be accomplished....” Rylander v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 302 So.2d 478, 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jones v. Treasure, 984 So.2d 634, 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). When determining the agreement of the parties, a co......
-
Gardinier, Inc., In re
...Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Astor Electric Service, Inc., 328 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Rylander v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 302 So.2d 478, 479 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974); Bal Harbour Shops, Inc. v. Greenleaf & Crosby Co., Inc., 274 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973), and, absent ambig......
-
Bornstein v. Somerson
...placed upon a contract by the trial judge should be affirmed. Clark v. Clark, 79 So.2d 426 (Fla.1955); Rylander v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 302 So.2d 478 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1974). After close examination of the subject agreement, we conclude that that the trial judge's construction of this ci......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Monsanto Co.
...v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 So. 113 (1931); Ferslew v. Relaford, 351 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Rylander v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 302 So.2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Pan American Distributing Company v. Sav-a-Stop, Inc., 124 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Even assuming proper waiver ins......