ROBERT J. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
BILL RIVERS TRAILERS, INC., AND BILL RIVERS CORP., 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.
Miller appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract complaint against Bill Rivers Trailers for unpaid sales commissions. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint contained sufficient allegations of contractual breach and that Miller could recover either on specified commission terms or alternatively on a quantum meruit basis.
The complaint contains sufficient allegations of contractual breach to survive dismissal. If more specificity is desired, appellee may move for a more definite statement under the rules of civil procedure. Additionally, recovery may be had on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable worth of the services, even if the parties failed to reach full agreement on compensation.
[1] A complaint alleging a contractual breach by failure to pay promised commissions is sufficient to state a cause of action, even if it does not specify the exact amount of…
[2] A party seeking a more specific allegation of damages in a complaint may obtain such relief through a motion for a more definite statement.
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“Appellant's complaint alleges that he was requested by appellee to act as sales manager and that he was promised a commission for sales orders which he secured. The complaint further alleges that appellant did secure sales orders, but that appellee refuses to pay the promised commissions.”
Establishes the factual basis of the breach of contract claim that the court found sufficient to withstand dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller alleged that he was requested by Bill Rivers Trailers to act as sales manager and was promised a commission for sales orders he secured. Miller…
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 Motion For More Definite Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which its complaint against appellee was dismissed with prejudice as “insufficient to state a cause of action.” We find that the complaint contains allegations of a contractual breach which are sufficient to permit recovery, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.
Appellant’s complaint alleges that he was requested by appellee to act as sales manager and that he was promised a commission for sales orders which he secured. The complaint further alleges that appellant did secure sales orders, but that appellee refuses to pay the promised commissions. The complaint does not allege any specific amount as, or computational method for determining, the appropriate commission, or that the parties ever reached agreement in regard thereto. But if appellee desires a more specific allegation of damages, such relief may be obtained by a Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(e) motion for a more definite statement. See Augustine v. Southern Bell, Telephone & Telegraph Co., 91 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1956); Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). And to the extent that the parties may have failed to reach full agreement as to the compensation for appellant’s services, recovery might nevertheless still be had “on the basis of quantum meruit, that is, the reasonable worth of the services_” Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1953); see generally, Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Appellant’s failure to specify quantum meruit as a basis of recovery does not preclude such relief.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…53) (en banc); Interior Design Concepts, Inc. v. Curtin, 473 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (as basis for recovery under doctrine of quantum meruit, plaintiff was required to show that services were performed); Miller v. Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). To satisfy the elements of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must allege facts that, taken as true, show that the plaintiff provided, and the defendant assented to and received, a benefit in the form of goods or services under circums…
-
Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…on to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 17, 1983, Count II of the third amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, as “insufficient to state a cause of action.” The dismissal was reversed by this court in Miller v. Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), with the explanation that although Miller’s complaint did not allege a specific amount or method of determining the appropriate commission, relief in the form of a motion for a more definite statement could be obtained, pursuant…1 / 2
-
Barnett & Clark, P.A. v. Symons, 545 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Poinsettia Dairy Prods, v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306 (1936); Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Miller v. Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); L.C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Augustine v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956)
- Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1953)