CHITTY & COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PRESTON H. HASKELL COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow a party to expand the issues on the day of trial or in refusing to allow an appraiser to offer opinions outside their expertise.
Chitty & Company appealed a judgment entered in its favor on its counterclaim to Haskell's contract action. The nonconforming warehouse constructed by…
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 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Chitty & Company appeals a judgment of $40,000 entered in its favor following a bench trial on its counterclaim to Haskell’s contract action. We affirm.
The parties agree that Grossman Holdings v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982), establishes the proper measure of damages. The evidence supports findings that: (1) the nonconforming warehouse constructed by Haskell could not be made economically conforming; (2) the building as constructed is worth in the real estate market $50,000 less than contracted for; and (3) the building is in substantial compliance, and in fact is in use, entitling Haskell to the unpaid contract price.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case involving conflicting experts by refusing to allow Chitty to expand the issues on the day of trial. International Patrol v. Aetna Casualty, 396 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Brown v. Montgomery Ward, 252 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow a property appraiser to offer opinions on methods of cure. This was clearly outside the area of his expertise.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Title & Tr. Co. OF Fla. v. Parker, 468 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…st a technical change in the issues to be tried, since the loan itself was made and was payable in California, so that we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the amendment. Chitty & Company v. Preston H. Haskell Company, 423 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We find that Title and Trust’s contention that the Parkers sustained no “loss,” and the Parkers’ contentions, regarding the amount of damages, implicate much the same legal and factual considerations. Both parties agree th…
-
Rich v. Arthur C. (Tony) Gulliver, 564 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…nt was, in any event, adduced at trial, and such evidence clearly established that the cause of action pled therein was barred by the statute of frauds. See Winfield v. Noe, 426 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co., 423 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); International Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 396 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), approved, 419 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1982); Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. den…
Authorities Cited
- Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
- Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Int'l Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 396 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)