Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 64-85
| Decision Date | 29 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-85,64-85 |
| Citation | 167 So.2d 640 |
| Parties | Antonio U. SANCHEZ and Jose Manuel Berenguer, Appellants, v. CRANDON WHOLESALE DRUG CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellants.
Sidney C. Kass and Charles H. Spooner, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their complaint alleging damages for breach of contract.
Appellee entered into an oral agreement with appellants whereby appellants would obtain orders for the shipment of drugs to Latin American countries. The appellee would fill these orders, and appellants would receive a percentage of the price for their efforts. Thereupon, appellants incurred those expenses normally associated with the initiation of such a business. They rented a store, obtained utilities therefor, advertised on the radio and in the newspapers, and engaged in those activities necessary to carry out the agreement. Within a month, appellee terminated the contract, and refused to deal further with appellants. This suit was initiated to recover for those expenses incurred in preparing to get the business started. Appellants contend that they expended these sums of money in reliance on the oral contract to which the parties had agreed. Both parties agreed, that there was no specific time limit or term for the agreement and accordingly, either party could terminate the agreement at will.
Appellants argue, however, that they had a right to rely on the agreement in incurring those expenses necessary to implement the contract, therefore, appellee could not terminate the contract prior to such time that appellants had an opportunity to recompense themselves for the initial expenses of performing the contract. However, should appellee cancel the agreement prior to such time, it must answer in damages.
Appellants cite as authority for this proposition the First District case of Florida-Georgia Chem. Co. v. National Laboratories, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 752. This case involved an action for breach of contract of an exclusive sales agency which was terminable at will. The court ruled that there was no cause of action for the termination of a contract terminable at will, but that a good cause of action was plead for breach of the exclusive sales contract where the defendant had sold to appellee's competitors prior to the termination of the contract.
We can find no support for appellant's contention in the above cited case, nor can we agree with the soundness of the proposition urged by appellants. If the contract terminable at will is conditioned on the right of one party recouping his initial investment, when will such an agreement be terminable, six months, a year, two years? It is obvious that the contract would no longer be terminable at the will of either party, but just at the will of the party who has expended money preparing to perform the contract.
Appellants argue that they may recover the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berger v. Philip Morris United States, Inc.
...smoked.12 The closest a Florida court appears to have come to defining “reliance” in a commercial setting is Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co.,167 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla.App.1964), decision quashed on other grounds,173 So.2d 687 (Fla.1965), in which the appellate court stated: “[r]eliance,......
-
Di Gennaro v. Rubbermaid, Inc.
...reasonable expenses. See Sanchez, 194 So.2d at 648 (permitting recovery only of expenses); Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 167 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964) (Carroll, J. dissent) ("the law implies an obligation to pay damages for reasonably incurred preliminary expenses.") (emph......
-
Ventanas Del Caribe, S. A. v. Stanley Works
...v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., which are reported at 194 So.2d 646 (Dist.Ct.App.), 174 So.2d 780 (Dist.Ct.App.), 173 So.2d 687 and 167 So.2d 640 (Dist.Ct.App). We cannot agree with the plaintiff's interpretation of the foregoing Florida cases. The most which can be said is that in the Flori......
-
Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 33846
...nature of the controversy, and questions of law presented and decided appear in the opinion of the District Court in Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 167 So.2d 640, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here. The decision of the District Court was divided with a dissenti......