FRED MCGILVRAY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE DELPHIAN GROUP, INC., 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.
Fred McGilvray, Inc. appeals a jury verdict awarding a brokerage commission to The Delphian Group, Inc. on a quantum meruit theory. The court affirmed, holding that quantum meruit recovery was available despite the absence of an express contract and that sufficient evidence supported both the broker's entitlement to recovery and the damages awarded.
Quantum meruit recovery was not barred because no express contract existed between the parties. Sufficient evidence established that Delphian conferred a compensable benefit on McGilvray by producing a loan offer on requested terms, entitling the broker to recovery for services rendered. The measure of damages was properly established using the invalid contract as evidence of the value of services performed.
[1] Quantum meruit recovery is not barred when no express contract was entered into between the parties.
[2] A plaintiff may recover on a quantum meruit theory when they have conferred a benefit upon a defendant that is compensable on such a basis.
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“It therefore follows that quantum meruit recovery was not barred in this case, as urged, on an express contract theory.”
Establishes the primary holding that absence of an express contract does not bar quantum meruit recovery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelphian, a mortgage broker, allegedly produced a loan offer from a bank on terms that McGilvray stated it wanted. No express contract was ever entere…
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 Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Fred McGilvray, Inc. (“McGilvray”) appeals an adverse final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a suit for a brokerage commission brought below by the plaintiff mortgage broker, The Delphian Group, Inc. (“Delphian”).
The suit below was originally brought on breach of contract and quantum meruit theories, but at the outset of trial, the plaintiff Delphian abandoned its breach of contract count and proceeded solely on its quantum meruit count. The ensuing verdict and final judgment were therefore based entirely on a quantum meruit theory. The defendant McGilvray urges as its central argument on appeal that the trial court erred in denying a defense motion for a directed verdict because a quantum meruit recovery was barred in this case as a matter of law. Upon full study of the record and applicable law, we cannot agree with this contention.
There was ample evidence adduced at trial that no express contract was ever entered into between the parties; indeed, Mr. Oscar Calleja, executive vice-president of the defendant McGilvray, conceded as much during his testimony below. It therefore follows that quantum meruit recovery was not barred in this case, as urged, on an express contract theory. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853, 857-58 (1928).
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Acme Electrical Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
There was also sufficient evidence adduced below that the plaintiff Delphian conferred a benefit upon the defendant McGilvray which was compensable on a quantum me-ruit theory. Although the evidence is in dispute, there was substantial competent evidence upon which a jury could have concluded that the plaintiff Delphian produced a loan offer from a reputable bank for the defendant McGilvray on terms which McGilvray stated it wanted. As such, the plaintiff Delphian as the broker was entitled to recovery for services rendered on a quantum meruit basis. Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So. 2d 876 (1944); Mead Corp. v. Mason, 191 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1967); National Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Associates, Inc., 160 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
Finally, there was sufficient evidence adduced below to establish an appropriate measure of damages in this case. The invalid contract herein, although not agreed to by the parties, was properly looked to below in measuring the value of the services rendered. Hazen v. Cobb, supra, 117 So. at 858. (“[T]he invalid or otherwise inadmissible express contract may be introduced in evidence on the question of the value of the services performed or the goods furnished.”); 12 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1478 (1980) (Invalid contract may be evidence of the value of services rendered to the defendant on a quantum meruit basis.)
The defendant McGilvray raises other points upon this appeal which we have examined and found to be insufficient to upset the judgment under review. See e.g., Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So. 2d 676, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); § 90.702, Fla.Stat. (1981). The final judgment under review is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commerce P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship & Forest-English, Inc. v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…an Yacht Sales, Inc. v. First NatT Bank of Chicago, 600 So. 2d 1131, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). . Maloney v. Therm Alum Industries, 636 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 645 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1994); Fred McGilvray, Inc. v. Delphian Group, Inc., 424 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
-
GEM Broad., Inc. v. Minker, 763 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…r day. Contrary to Gem’s contention on appeal, the trial court was not precluded from considering Minker’s unaccepted proposal for a contract when assessing the reasonable value of Minker’s services. See Fred McGilvray, Inc. v. Delphian Group, Inc., 424 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Gem also argues that Minker may not recover on a “quantum meruit” claim because he failed to establish that he conferred a benefit on the company. Gem’s argument confuses a contract implied in fact with a contract implied i…
-
Williams v. Davanzo, 891 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…onferred on defendant-appellee. See Hull & Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 834 So. 2d 904, 906-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. First Union National Bank, 667 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fred McGilvray, Inc. v. Delphian Group, Inc., 424 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The defendant argues that certain other documents in the case demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit. This reversal is, of course, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for summary judgment if approp…
Authorities Cited
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1944)
- Atl. Coast Dev. Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc., 160 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- The Mead Corp. v. Mason, 191 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Kohly v. Royal Indem. Co., 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1967)
- Male v. State, 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1967)
- Bridges v. State, 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Acme Elec. Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)