U SHOP RITE, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD'S PAINT MFG. CO., INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
U Shop Rite appealed from a judgment awarding an injunction and damages for breach of a non-compete agreement. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the injunction perpetual and therefore unenforceable, the punitive damages improper in a contract case, and the compensatory damages unsupported by evidence.
The trial court erred in issuing a perpetual injunction because such injunctions are unknown to law and unenforceable, and the injunction improperly expanded the contractual duties and enjoined non-parties. The court also erred in awarding punitive damages because breach of contract does not constitute a tort, and there was no contractual or statutory basis for attorney fees. Finally, the court erred in awarding compensatory damages of $150 when no damages were proved.
[1] A perpetual injunction is unknown to the law and therefore unenforceable.
[2] An injunction that expands the duties established by a contract is erroneous to the extent of the expansion.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers.”
Establishes that the trial court's perpetual injunction was fundamentally unenforceable as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU Shop Rite and O.A. Griffis had a contract with Richard's Paint Mfg. Co. that contained a non-compete clause restricting them from entering the paint…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nominal Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding injunctive relief and a judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages. We reverse.
The permanent injunction provides “U Shop Rite, Inc., Paint Rite Mfg., Inc., O.
A. Griffis, Ronald V. Rowsey and each of them, their agents, servants and/or employees and those acting in concert therewith, directly or indirectly be and they are hereby forthwith jointly and severally, perpetually enjoined and restrained from the manufacture, distribution, sale and/or offering for sale, any and all paint products manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale by the defendant Paint Rite Mfg., Inc.” A perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers. There was a contract between the appellants O.
A. Griffis and U Shop Rite, Inc. as one party, and appellees, Edward J. Richard and Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., Inc. as the other party, by the terms of which appellants would not “enter into a competitive business such as the paint manufacturing business, within a 350 mile radius of the Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., Inc. paint manufacturing plant located in Brevard County, Florida, for a ten year period from the date of this agreement.” As worded this agreement limits its no-competition clause to paint manufacturing which competes with Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., Inc. within 350 miles of the plant in Brevard County for ten years. The injunction which expands the contract duties is erroneous to the extent it expands those duties. The injunction is also excessive where it enjoins persons other than those party to the contract.
As to the judgment for damages, the trial court committed error when it awarded punitive damages in a breach of contract case, since the acts constituting the breach of contract do not also amount to a cause of action in tort. Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. Lee, 268 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The award of “punitive damages ... in consideration of attorney fees incurred by plaintiffs” was error not only because punitive damages.are not proper but because there was no contractual or statutory right to attorneys fees.
In the course of the trial the judge found “. . .1 don’t have any testimony as to how much it is, and you can say that the court couldn’t allow damages.” Yet he went ahead and awarded compensatory damages of $150.00. We agree with his statement no compensatory damages were proved and decline to accept appellees urging that the judge really meant to say nominal damages, in order to support the punitive damages award. Thus the award of compensatory damages was error. The judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for entry of a proper judgment in accordance herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abbey Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…nforceable and a trial court abuses its equity powers if it attempts to impose such a sanction. Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. Southern Catering Services, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); and U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., Inc., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In the instant case, the mandatory injunction orders Abbey Park to maintain the common elements and enjoins it from allowing the common elements to fall into disrepair. However, the injunction is perpetual; it does not state any…
-
Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…pt stemming from it would necessarily fail. However, we do not agree that the injunction was void. The wife places her hopes upon language contained in an opinion issued by this court in U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard’s Paint Manufacturing Co., Inc., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). This is the particular quote upon which she relies, “a perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court…
-
Hinton Roy Johnson, Jr. v. Lasher Milling Co., Inc., 379 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…tsch v. Walker, 360 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.1st DCA 1979); Greer et al. v. Williams, 375 So. 2d 333 (Fla.3rd DCA 1979); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla.3rd DCA 1979); UShop Rite, Inc. v. Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.4th DCA 1979). Since we find no error, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and WENT-WORTH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. LEE, 268 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)