Sound City, Inc. v. Kessler, W--71

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Citation: 316 So.2d 315
• Docket Number: No. W--71,W--71
• Parties: SOUND CITY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. William KESSLER et al., Appellees.
• Decision Date: 08 August 1975

Page 315

316 So.2d 315 SOUND CITY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
William KESSLER et al., Appellees. No. W--71. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Aug. 8, 1975.

Page 316

Lynn M. LoPucki, Schwartz, Schwartz & LoPucki, Gainesville, for appellant.

Stuart A. Markus, Markus, Winter & Spitale, Miami, for appellees.

BOYER, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff in the trial court here appeals a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of the defendants, appellees here.

In settlement of a disputed account appellant delivered to appellees a check in the sum of $1,159.20 upon the back of which check was written the following:

'This check is accepted in full settlement of transactions represented by invoices listed in other side. By endorsing this check and obtaining payment hereof, the endorsers agree that they will not in the future refuse to sell and deal whith (sic) Sound City Inc on a COD basis (this agreement requires the extension of no credit whatsoever). It is agreed by the parties hereto that this agreement shall be specifically enforcable; & if it is violated by any endorser that endorser agrees to pay damages and reasonable attorney's fee to enforce this agreement. The parties to this agreement are Sound City Inc and the undersigned endorsers.'

The check was endorsed and negotiated by appellees. Shortly thereafter appellees notified appellant that they would no longer sell to nor deal with appellant.

Suit was promptly filed, reciting the transaction above mentioned, the agreement evidenced by the language and endorsements on the back of the above mentioned check and alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law because the defendant's brand name is well established, its products unique, and that substitute equipment acceptable to plaintiff's customers is not available elsewhere.

The judgment on the pleadings here appealed determined the above quoted language insufficient to constitute an enforceable contract, reciting 'that the purported contract, which is the subject matter of this action, is totally lacking in any provision for duration' citing as authority Florida-Georgia Chem. Co. v. National Laboratories, Fla.App.1st 1963, 153 So.2d 752.

There is no contention that the above quoted writing is deficient in any manner other than the failure to provide for a durational period.

It is axiomatic that the cardinal rule in the construction of contracts is the intention of the parties thereto. ¹ In Triple E Development Co. v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., ² the court stated:

'This Court, from time to time, has approved certain rules to be observed in the construction of contracts and among them are the following: (1) the contract should be considered as a whole in determining

Page 317

the intention of the parties to the instrument; (2) the conditions and circumstances surrounding the parties to the instrument and the object or objects to be obtained when the contract was executed should be considered; (3) courts should place themselves, as near as possible in the exact situation of the parties to the instrument, when executed, so as to determine the intention of the parties, objects to be accomplished, obligations created, time of performance, duration, mutuality, and other essential features * * *' (51...