JOHN M. KOVTAN, APPELLANT,
v.
KAY H. FREDERIKSEN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Express Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal appellant contends the trial court erred in directing a verdict against appellant in his suit to recover money damages for accounting services rendered to appellee.
Upon review of the record, including the briefs, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that appellant based his claim for relief on the quasi-contract theory of contract recovery. However, during the course of the trial, appellant testified that appellee expressly agreed to compensate him for the services, thereby proving the existence of an express agreement between the parties. It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Williams v. Stewart, 424 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Solutec v. Young & Lawrence Associates, Inc., 243 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s granting of appellee’s motion for directed verdict.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Diamond "S" Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…have held that a plaintiff cannot pursue a quasi-contract claim for unjust enrichment if an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter. Ocean Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accord Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So. 2d 1222, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We agree that appellee’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the existence of an express contract between the partie…
-
The Real Est. Value Co., Inc. v. Carnival Corp., 92 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…l Contract precluded TRIPS's claim for unjust enrichment. This was error. We acknowledge the well settled principle that "the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.” Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (emphasis added). However, as set forth above, the trial court correctly determined that the TRIP$Carnival Contract unambiguously does not encompass the AARP discount programs. Thus, the TRIP$-Carnival Contract does not concern…
-
Ocean Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…2, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)). Defendants correctly state that a plaintiff cannot pursue an equitable theory, such as unjust enrichment or quantum me-ruit, to prove entitlement to relief if an express contract exists. See, e.g., Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”); In re Estate of Lonstein, 433 So. 2d 672, 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same). A contract implied in…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Assocs., Inc., 243 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- POE v. Est. OF Gertrude Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Williams v. Stewart, 424 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)