Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. C. H. Barco Contracting Co., Inc., WOOD-HOPKINS

• Decision Date: 15 October 1974
• Docket Number: WOOD-HOPKINS,No. U--211,U--211
• Citation: Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. C. H. Barco Contracting Co., Inc., 301 So.2d 479 (Fla. App. 1974)
• Parties: CONTRACTING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. C. H. BARCO CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 479

301 So.2d 479

WOOD-HOPKINS CONTRACTING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v.C. H. BARCO CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. U--211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1974.

Martin Sack, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Willard E. Parsons, Jacksonville, for appellee.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant entered into a contract with the City of Gainesville for site development at its municipal generating station.Appellant then subcontracted to appellee the excavation, filling, grading and paving portions of the contract.The subcontract was written on an American Institute of Architects form which provided:

'. . . that the contractor would give the sub-contractor an opportunity to be present and submit evidence in any arbitration involving his rights, would name as arbitrator under arbitration proceeding as provided in the general conditions the person nominated by the subcontractor, and that in the matter of arbitration, the parties' rights and obligations and all procedure would be analogous to those set forth in the sub-contract.'

This form is ordinarily used with an A.I.A. General Contract form containing arbitration procedures.However, in the instant case, the city prepared its own general contract and general conditions which made no provisions for arbitration.

Appellant sued appellee for failure to complete its subcontract and for overpayment by appellant to appellee for the paving work.The lower court entered a final judgment in favor of appellee-defendant, finding that arbitration was mandatory and the parties' exclusive remedy.The sole question before this court is the correctness of that finding....