Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Medlin
| Decision Date | 13 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1101,84-1101 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 653,468 So.2d 272 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 653 SHEARSON LOEB RHOADES, INC., Appellant, v. George Q. MEDLIN, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Brodsky of Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Glenn R. Mee and V.J. Voorheis, of Andrews, Voorheis, Lehrer & Baggett, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Medlin sued Shearson for damages occasioned by the latter's failure to effect timely transfer of stocks from Medlin's individual name to that of Medlin's trust. The trial court measured the damages by "the difference between the value at which [Medlin] wanted to sell the securities ... and the value of such shares at their respective dates of delivery," entering judgment of $131,300 for Medlin. The issue is whether the measure of damages applied by the trial court was appropriate. We think not and reverse.
There is some conflict in the testimony but, in summary, it was established that Medlin delivered the securities to Shearson on September 16, 1980, indicating his intention to sell them before the end of the year; that he was told he could not sell the stock while the certificates were in the process of being transferred; and that ordinarily the certificates should have been returned by September 30, 1980, but were in fact redelivered to him much later than that.
The value of the securities for the period in controversy reached a high on or about the dates Medlin allegedly intended to sell, thereafter declining, but not below the value on the date the certificates should have been redelivered to Medlin.
As a general rule, Grossman Holdings, Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Fla.1982) (citations omitted). See also Lake Region Paradise Island, Inc. v. Graviss, 335 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 338 So.2d 842 (Fla.1976). While no Florida cases have been called to our attention dealing specifically with the measure of damages for delay in delivery of stock certificates, other jurisdictions have essentially applied the general rule in that situation. For instance, in Allen v. Blyth, 173 Wash. 409, 23 P.2d 567, 568 (1933), the court stated:
The measure of damages for delayed delivery of goods or corporate stock ... [is] the difference between the value when they should have been delivered and the value when they were actually delivered....
See also Kaufman v. Diversified Industries, Inc., 460 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1038, 93 S.Ct. 517, 34 L.Ed.2d 487 (1972); Englehart v. Cassatt, 305 Pa. 117, 157 A. 256 (1931). Recovery under this rule, however, is subject to a showing that the damages were " 'such as may fairly be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract, or such as might, according to the ordinary course of things, be expected to follow its violation.' " Englehart, 157 A. at 258 (citations omitted). See also Life Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Johnson, 422 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So.2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); First National Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Leesburg Transfer & Storage, Inc., 139 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Allen, 23 P.2d at 568.
A showing of entitlement to damages under the general rule is accomplished by the plaintiff demonstrating that, had he possessed the shares, he would have sold them during the interim between the date of breach and the actual date of delivery. Otherwise, he would be no worse off because of the delay. Kaufman, 460 F.2d at 1331; Englehart, 157 A. at 256.
In the instant case, Medlin made the requisite showing to entitle him to damages pursuant to the general rule. He testified that at the time he delivered the stock he advised Shearson of his intent to sell prior to the end of 1980. An agent of Shearson admitted that Medlin told her of this intent but she could not be certain whether he first mentioned it at the time of delivery of the stocks to her or at a later date. Medlin thus presented sufficient evidence (as to all but one of the stocks, which was returned to him prior to the end of 1980) to allow a finding that his damages should be measured as the difference between the value of the stocks at the time of breach and their value when they were actually delivered.
However, as previously indicated, since applying this measure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Coleman Holdings
...the fraud. To support its argument that it was entitled to all "pre-sale" losses, CPH relies primarily on Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Medlin, 468 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, Shearson hinders rather than helps CPH's claim. In that case, we held that the measure of damages......
-
Perera v. Diolife LLC
...breach, March 31, 2016, Perera had a right to receive $ 200,000 and, instead, he received nothing. See Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Medlin , 468 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (stating that damages generally "should be measured as of the date of the breach" (quoting Grossman Holdings ......
-
Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp.
...wrongfully redeemed, a principle supported by the cases that DHC and Dalton rely upon. For instance, in Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Medlin, 468 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the court held that the measure of damages for delay in delivery of stock certificates is the difference between ......
-
Kozel v. Kozel
...not even the only way one might determine benefit-of-the-bargain damages in a case like this. See, e.g., Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Medlin, 468 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (explaining that contract damages for the delayed delivery of stock are determined as of the date of the br......