GRUMMAN ECOSYSTEMS CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ETC., 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.
Grumman appealed a summary judgment awarding Griffin rentals owed for equipment in a construction project dispute. The court reversed the summary judgment on the primary issue of contract formation because factual disputes existed regarding whether Griffin's written proposal and uniform rental agreement—or Grumman's purchase order—formed the basis of the contract, precluding summary judgment.
The summary judgment must be reversed because genuine factual disputes exist regarding whether the Griffin proposal and uniform rental agreement or Grumman's purchase order formed the basis for the parties' contract. However, the trial court properly dismissed Grumman's counterclaims and affirmative defenses to the extent they were self-contradictory.
[1] A summary judgment must be reversed when there is a factual dispute regarding whether a written proposal and a separately referenced uniform rental agreement form the bas…
[2] A court does not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to amend pleadings after several unsuccessful attempts to plead defenses and counterclaims.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“On examination of the summary judgment record we find that there is a factual dispute of whether the Griffin proposal and the referred-to uniform rental agreement formed the basis for the parties' contract.”
The court identifies the key disputed issue preventing summary judgment—which document controlled the contract terms.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrumman rented equipment from Griffin for a construction project. Griffin issued a written proposal referencing a uniform rental agreement containing …
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 Contract Formation cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
Grumman appeals from a final summary judgment sustaining Griffin’s claim for rentals due for equipment rented by Grumman for a construction project. The summary judgment is predicated on the court’s finding that the parties’ agreement was expressed in Griffin’s written proposal and in a separate “uniform rental agreement” referred to in that proposal. The trial court held that Grumman’s failure to return or complain of defective equipment, according to restrictions stated in the uniform rental agreement, foreclosed Grumman’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserting that the equipment was defective, causing Grumman delays and other losses. On examination of the summary judgment record we find that there is a factual dispute of whether the Griffin proposal and the referred-to uniform rental agreement formed the basis for the parties’ contract. On those issues, then, the summary judgment must be reversed.
We find no error in the court’s dismissal of Grumman’s counterclaims and striking of its affirmative defenses asserting, not alternatively but as a self-contradiction, that the parties’ agreement was as stated in Grumman’s purchase order except for ancillary oral agreements, allegedly unfulfilled by Griffin, which the express terms of Grumman’s purchase order negated. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying Grumman further leave to amend the following several unsuccessful attempts to plead those defenses and counterclaims. The trial court properly eliminated counterclaims III and IV and their counterparts among the affirmative defenses. On the other issues the summary judgment is
REVERSED.
THOMPSON, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Vest, 480 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…have known of its falsity; (3) the representor must intend that the representation induce another to act on it; (4) injury must result to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation. Alexander/Davis Properties, Inc. v. Graham, 391 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1093 (Fla.1981); Joiner v. McCullers, 158 Fla. 562, 28 So. 2d 823 (1947); Kutner v. Kalish, 173 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1965). We find two elements missing in Vest…
-
Senft v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., 95 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…hich was never mentioned or relied upon as part of the contract in its complaint. At the very least, it raises a material issue of fact as to what constituted the contract between the parties. See, e.g., Grumman Ecosystems Corp. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 391 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.…