Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 70--244
| Decision Date | 22 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--244,70--244 |
| Citation | 242 So.2d 192 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SEAWAY YACHT SALES, INC., Appellant, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and Bertram Yacht Sales of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., Appellees. . Third District |
Jepeway, Gassen & Jepeway, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Brunswick.
Heiman & Crary and Edward A. Kaufman, Miami, for Bertram.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. ('Seaway') appeals the final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict for the co-defendants Brunswick Corporation ('Brunswick') and Bertram Yacht Sales of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. ('Bertram'), the appellees, at the close of all the evidence in a jury trial. Appellant-Seaway generally contends that the evidence was sufficient to create jury-submissible questions as to cancellation of his boat dealership agreement because of an exception to the parol evidence rule and as to tortious interference with that agreement.
Seaway sued: (a) Brunswick and Bertram for illegal restraint of trade in violation of Ch. 542, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; (b) Bertram for tortious interference with existing boat dealership contracts; and (c) Brunswick for breach of those contracts.
The parties agree that there was an important boat dealership agreement based upon several 1967 contracts between Seaway and Brunswick, that significant business problems and personality clashes developed between Brunswick as manufacturer and Seaway as dealer, and that the 1967 contracts drafted by Brunswick provided for cancellation in the following language:
'It is further agreed that this franchise may be cancelled by either party on thirty days notice for any reason whatsoever.'
There is no dispute that Brunswick gave thirty days' written notice of its cancellation.
The parties do dispute whether the Brunswick-Seaway disagreements were so irreconciable as to justify cancellation under the contract terms as properly construed; whether the trial court properly construed the contract language; and whether the Bertram-Brunswick negotiations constituted a tortious interference with an existing contract.
To begin with, it is not necessary to construe the contract language 'for any reason whatsoever,' for there is ample, undisputed evidence as to both personality clashes and business problems to Justify Brunswick in cancelling the contracts. There was evidence that these problems had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazara Enterprises v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC
...claim (Count IV). See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Jefferson Distributing Co., 353 F.2d 956 (5th Cir.1965); Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 242 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Finally, the Court concludes that the negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims are le......
-
Trionic Associates, Inc. v. Harris Corp.
...permit both of the contracting parties to terminate "for any reason whatsoever: on 30 days notice." See Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 242 So.2d 192 (Fla.App. 1970) (finding that it was "not necessary to construe [the term] ... `for any reason whatsoever'" when there was "undi......
-
Ethyl Corp. v. Balter
...592 F.2d 1361 (5th Cir. 1979); Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla.1949); Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 242 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Insofar as the plaintiff separately claims the right to recovery for Ethyl's "interference" with expectation......
-
Spurlock v. Ely
...v. Balter, Fla.App., 386 So.2d 1220, cert. denied 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, Fla.App., 242 So.2d 192 (1970); See also Lingard v. Kiraly, Fla.App., 110 So.2d 715, 717 (1959) (plaintiff must establish by evidence tha......