Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--376,70--376 |
| Parties | Donald SYMON and James C. Tully, Appellants, v. J. ROLFE DAVIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carl R. Pennington, Jr., of Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Harlan Tuck of Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for appellee.
Appellants-defendants, Donald Symon and James C. Tully, appeal a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee-plaintiff, J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., in an action for damages alleging unjust enrichment and tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. We reverse.
Plaintiff, a corporation, through its licensed real estate broker, entered into a contract with Lease-Bak, Inc., to secure tenants for a proposed shopping center on land owned by Lease-Bak. The contract provided for commissions payable upon the execution of leases with acceptable tenants, or upon sale of the shopping center property. Plaintiff opened negotiations with prospective tenants, and eventually secured a proposed lease from Winn-Dixie and a letter of intent from Eckerd Drugs within the time specified in the contract.
Approximately a year after the brokerage contract was executed, the shopping center property ws sold to defendants. Within a few weeks of the sale, defendants had secured leases from both Winn-Dixie and Eckerd Drugs with substantially the same terms as those negotiated by plaintiff's broker. Plaintiff then made demand upon Lease-Bak and appellant for payment of the brokerage commission.
Upon failure of Lease-Bak or appellant to pay the brokerage commission, plaintiff then instituted suit to recover the brokerage commission for securing the tenants. Lease-Bak was later dismissed as a party defendant pursuant to stipulation, and the cause proceeded against the appellants, Symon and Tully.
The complaint against Symon and Tully alleged in count one that Symon and Tully with full knowledge of both plaintiff's contract and its service thereunder, took advantage thereof and were unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff. Count two alleged that Symon and Tully by purchasing the property and continuing negotiations with the prospective tenants intentionally and without justification interfered with plaintiff's favorable business relationship with Lease-Bak. At trial the jury returned a verdict for appellee, and final judgment was entered accordingly. This appeal followed.
The primary thrust of the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support that judgment. It is well settled that where services are rendered by one person for another which are knowingly and voluntarily accepted, the law presumes that such services are given and received in expectation of being paid for, and will imply a promise to pay what they are reasonably worth. Yeats v. Moody, 1937, 128 Fla. 658, 175 So. 719; 28 Fla.Jur., Restitution & Implied Contracts § 16. The liability in such cases, in the absence of any special agreement, is founded upon a presumption of law that the party benefitted undertakes to pay reasonable compensation for such services, but this presumption arises from, and is liable to be rebutted by, the circumstances of each particular case. Lewis v. Meginniss, 1892, 30 Fla. 419, 12 So. 19.
In the case sub judice we have been unable to find any evidence or reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom that would give rise to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwood & Co. Real Estate v. C-D Inv. Co.
...["[T]he buyer does not become the seller's 'successor or assigns' merely by buying the property."]. The decision in Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. (Fla.App.1971) 245 So.2d 278 is also instructive. In Symon, the plaintiff broker had an agreement to secure tenants for a proposed shopping cente......
-
Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc.
...by the defendant, and (3) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the business relationship. Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971). As is further pointed out in Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d D......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. P.L. Dodge Foundations, Inc.
...359 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency v. Zeskind, 315 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). A prisoner-recipient is not excepted from this rule. Lutheran Medical Center v. Omaha, 204 Neb. 292, 281 N.W.2d 78......
-
Hoon v. Pate Const. Co., Inc.
...under circumstances where there is no express contract. Aldebot v. Story, 534 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971). We fail to see how this principle applies to the breach of contract claim asserted......
-
Business & commercial cases
...Maimone, 389 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), petition for rev. denied , 411 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1981). 10. Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1971). 11. Kreizinger v. Schlesinger , 925 So.2d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). 1......