AL'S MOTOR COMPANY AND RAY STARR, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
JACKSON MARINE SALES, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT, V. FINEST AWNINGS, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1983-06-08
No. 82-1250
LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.
432 So. 2d 736 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Buyers of a yacht appealed from a trial court judgment denying their claim for rescission and awarding damages to the seller. The court affirmed the denial of rescission but remanded on the seller's cross-appeal regarding the damages amount, finding the trial court's award inadequate under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code provisions.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of rescission but remanded the damages calculation, finding the trial court's award of $6,618.10 inadequate based on the unrebutted testimony regarding the seller's documented expenses and market loss totaling $37,471.45.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's award of damages and denial of rescission claims will be affirmed if supported by the record.

[2] When a trial court's damage award is not clearly supported by the evidence or statutory provisions, the case may be remanded for a determination of the proper amount or a…

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

Key Quotes

“the unrebutted testimony establishes that while cross appellee Starr retained the certificate of title to the yacht, making its sale impossible, the seller incurred expenses for interest of $19,517.47 in floor-planning, insurance of $2,884.98 and storage of $6,600”

Establishes the factual basis for the seller's claim that documented expenses were not adequately considered in the damages award.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Al's Motor Company and Ray Starr purchased a yacht from Jackson Marine Sales, Inc. Starr retained the certificate of title to the yacht, making its sa…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

The buyers of a yacht appeal from the trial court’s award of damages to the seller and its denial of the buyers’ claim for rescission. We affirm the judgment as to both of the foregoing. The seller cross appeals the judgment in its favor for $13,-118.10, less the buyers’ deposit of $6,500, or a total judgment of $6,618.10, contending that the unrebutted testimony establishes that while cross appellee Starr retained the certificate of title to the yacht, making its sale impossible, the seller incurred expenses for interest of $19,517.47 in floor-planning, insurance of $2,884.98 and storage of $6,600. Further, the market value of the vessel had fallen $15,169. It contends its entitlement to $37,471.45 in addition to the buyers’ down payment. We are unable to determine the basis for the smaller award made by the trial court in light of the foregoing evidence and sections 672.7081 and 672.710,2 Florida Statutes (1981).3 Accordingly, with respect to the cross appeal, we remand with direction to determine the proper amount of damages pursuant to said statutes or to set forth the basis for the award made.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur. . Section 672.708 provides:

Seller’s damages for nonacceptance or repudiation.—

(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (s. 672.723), the measure of damages for nonacceptance or repudiation by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price together with any incidental damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer’s breach. (2) If the measure of damages provided in subsection (1) is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have done then the measure of damages is the profit (including reasonable overhead) which the seller would have made from full performance by the buyer, together with any incidental damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.710), due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale.

. Section 672.710 provides:

Seller’s incidental damages. — Incidental damages to an aggrieved seller include any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions incurred in stopping delivery, in the transportation, care and custody of goods after the buyer’s breach, in connection with return or resale of the goods or otherwise resulting from the breach.

. Cross appellees’ brief has been stricken as untimely and not considered by this court.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Page Avjet Corp. v. Cosgrove Aircraft Serv., Inc., 546 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …ourt’s award. Where record support for the trial court’s award is absent, the appellate court must reverse the trial court’s decision. Boyman v. Stuart Hatteras, Inc., 527 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Al’s Motor Co. v. Jackson Marine Sales, Inc., 432 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). After analyzing the multiple theories advanced in the trial court, we are unable to discern a premise for Cosgrove’s recovery. Cosgrove repeatedly stated that it was suing on an invoice to recover the price of the turbine and n…
  • Boyman v. Stuart Hatteras, Inc., 527 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
    …ive of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of a jury. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976), but there are limits. There is no reasonable record justification for this award, see Al’s Motor Company v. Jackson Marine Sales, Inc., 432 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and so we must reverse it. We affirm the remaining point on appeal and remand this cause for retrial solely on [*854] the issue of damages. In so doing, we suggest that more detailed pretrial practice be employed to narrow the…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw