BLAIR HOUSE SOUTH, A CONDOMINIUM, APPELLANT,
v.
ALL FLORIDA PAINT STORE, INC. AND CORONADO PAINT COMPANY, INC., 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.
Blair House South, a condominium association, sued paint suppliers for damages based on breach of warranty after the paint applied to its buildings had an unsatisfactory appearance. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court erroneously excluded the plaintiff's rebuttal evidence regarding proper paint application after defendants asserted improper application as an affirmative defense.
The trial court erred in excluding rebuttal evidence. When defendants assert an affirmative defense of confession and avoidance—acknowledging a problem but attributing it to plaintiff's improper application—the plaintiff should be permitted to adduce rebuttal evidence that the paint was, in fact, properly applied.
[1] A plaintiff should be permitted to present rebuttal evidence to counter a defense that admits a problem but attributes it to the plaintiff's actions.
[2] A trial court errs by refusing to allow rebuttal testimony that directly addresses a defense of confession and avoidance.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defense as offered was in the nature of a confession and an avoidance which was a recognition that there was a problem of discoloration after the paint was applied but that this was caused by employees of the plaintiff who improperly applied the paint. With this defense the plaintiff should have been permitted to adduce evidence on rebuttal that the paint was, in fact, properly applied.”
Establishes the legal principle that when a defendant asserts an affirmative defense of improper application, the plaintiff has the right to present rebuttal evidence on that issue.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlair House South contracted with All Florida Paint Store, Inc. to purchase paint recommended by All Florida, which was manufactured by Coronado Paint…
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 Implied Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
A condominium association decided to have the buildings of the condominium painted. Pursuant to this purpose it went to All Florida Paint Store, Inc. to purchase the paint and it was determined to use, upon All Florida’s recommendation, paint manufactured by Coronado Paint Company, Inc. Subsequent to the paint being applied, the association was unhappy with its appearance and commenced an action for damages alleging breach of express warranty, of implied warranty of fitness and of implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court directed a verdict on the first two causes of action and submitted the action to the jury on the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants and this appeal ensued.
The defendant’s defense in part was that the paint was improperly applied. After defendants rested, the plaintiff sought to offer rebuttal testimony in “regards to the defendants’ witnesses that this paint was not properly applied”. The trial court refused to permit the use of rebuttal witnesses. We find this to be error.1 The defense as offered was in the nature of a confession and an avoidance which was a recognition that there was a problem of discoloration after the paint was applied but that this was caused by employees of the plaintiff who improperly applied the paint. With this defense the plaintiff should have been permitted to adduce evidence on rebuttal that the paint was, in fact, properly applied. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Watkins, 97 Fla. 350, 121 So. 95 (1929); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Myrick, 91 Fla. 918, 109 So. 193 (1926); Ahearn v. Florida Power and Light Company, 113 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) quashed on other grounds Florida Power and Light Company v. Ahearn, 118 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1960); 32 Fla.Jur., Trial § 45.
Therefore the final judgment on the jury verdict be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
. On the state of the evidence at the time of the directed verdicts on the first two counts, we find no error in these rulings by the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Myrick, 91 Fla. 918 (Fla. 1926)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Watkins, 97 Fla. 350 (Fla. 1929)
- Palm Beach Cnty. Oil Co. v. Hannon, 97 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1929)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Ahearn, 118 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1960)
- Ahearn v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 113 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)