CLEARWATER ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
HICKS LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, 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.
A laundry operator sued a new owner of an apartment complex for breach of a laundry services contract originally made with the prior owner. The trial court found the new owner bound by the contract and awarded damages for lost profits, and the appellate court affirmed.
The trial court properly found the purchaser bound by the contract based on its conduct, including acceptance of rents, knowledge of the laundry operator's occupancy, delay in notifying the operator of non-binding intent, prior owner testimony, and an adversely construed letter. The damages award was also proper as it had a reasonable basis in the evidence despite the inherent difficulty in calculating lost profits.
[1] A purchaser of an apartment complex may be bound by a contract entered into by the prior owner with a laundry operator if the purchaser's conduct demonstrates acceptance…
[2] Evidence such as acceptance of rents, knowledge of the operator's occupancy, and a delay in disavowing the contract can support a finding that a purchaser is bound by a p…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court had no basis to find the purchaser bound by the contract under the trial court's construction of all the evidence relative to the conduct of the parties”
Establishes the standard of review: whether the record supports the trial court's factual findings regarding the purchaser's binding obligation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClearwater Associates operated laundry facilities at an apartment complex under a contract with the original owner. When Hicks Laundry Equipment Corpo…
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 Damages Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a lawsuit by a laundry operator against the purchaser of an apartment complex for breach of the contract governing operation of the laundry facilities. The contract had been entered into between the laundry operator and the prior owner of the complex. The trial court found that the purchaser was bound by the contract and awarded damages to the laundry operator. The purchaser appeals.
On the record before us we cannot say that the trial court had no basis to find the purchaser bound by the contract under the trial court's construction of all the evidence relative to the conduct of the parties. The evidence included acceptance of rents by the purchaser; knowledge by the purchaser of the laundry operator’s occupancy of the premises; a period of delay between the time the purchaser agreed to buy the complex and the time the purchaser first notified the laundry operator of its intention not to be bound by the contract; testimony by the prior owner relating to obligations of the purchaser; and a letter from the purchaser which the trial court construed adversely to the purchaser — all of which was against the background of steps taken by the laundry operator to modify the laundry facility to comply with the terms of the contract. The dealings between the parties in all of those respects are not entirely clear from the record, but the trial court’s final judgment is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Oceanic International Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
The purchaser also contends that the trial court erred in its assessment of the amount of damages awarded to compensate the laundry operator for profits lost as result of the breach. The purchaser disputes the validity and weight given to many of the factors used by the laundry operator to determine his lost profits. However, uncertainty as to the precise amount of, or difficulty in proving, damages does not preclude recovery if there is some reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded. Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Where damages cannot be precisely determined, the trial judge is vested with reasonable discretion in making the award of damages. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mark-A, Inc., 324 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). We cannot say that the record in this case does not provide reasonable basis for the trial court’s award.
As to appellant's remaining contentions, we are unable to establish from the record that the trial court erred.
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utils., Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…l Telephone & Telegraph, 383 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We recognize that a trial judge is vested with reasonable discretion in awarding damages where they cannot be precisely determined. Clearwater Associates v. Hicks Laundry Equipment Corp., 433 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Mark-A, Inc., 324 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Nevertheless, we think this case is distinguishable in that Suncoast did not show either by Tunstall’s testimony or any other evidence the…
-
Smith v. Austin Dev. Co., 538 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ncertainty as to the amount of damages, or difficulty in proving the exact amount, will not preclude recovery, there must be some reasonable basis in the evidence to support the amount awarded. Clearwater Associates v. Hicks Laundry Equipment Corp., 433 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Adams v. Dreyfus Interstate Dev. Corp., 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the party seeking damages to present evidence to justify an award of damages in a definite amount. United Steel & Strip…
-
E.F.K. Collins Corp. v. S.M.M.G., Inc., 464 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…asonable discretion in awarding damages, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded. U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utilities, Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Clearwater Associates v. Hicks Laundry Equipment Corp., 433 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). There is no such evidence here. We further find that appellee did not establish by competent, substantial evidence that it had brought the proper defendant before the trial court. Appellee introduced what purported to be a suble…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Strawgate v. Dorothea Chase Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1976)
- Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mark-A, Inc., 324 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)