MIGUEL MURCIANO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE ANTONIO URROZ, A/K/A JOSE URROZ MAYORGA, 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.
The court held that a party cannot recover lost profits for a business that has not yet commenced operations.
Urroz paid a deposit for an aircraft to start a crop dusting business, based on Murciano's representations. The aircraft was never delivered, and the …
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 Conspiracy To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
This is an action based upon fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and conspiracy to convert property. The trial court entered judgment against appellant Murciano in accordance with the jury verdict awarding appellee Urroz compensatory and punitive damages. We reverse the damage award.
The basic facts involve a thwarted attempt by Urroz to purchase an aircraft to start a crop dusting business. Based upon representations made by Murciano that his employer, Nigel Winfield, could deliver an aircraft to Urroz within three months, Ur-roz gave Murciano a $10,000 deposit. However, the airplane was never delivered and the deposit was never returned.
We are compelled to reverse the damage portion of the final judgment because of the trial court’s error in instructing the jury that Urroz was entitled to recover lost profits. It is axiomatic that to establish lost profits, a litigant must prove that his business has earned profits for a reasonable time anterior, to the breach. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718, 166 So. 856 (1936); A & P Bakery Supply & Equipment Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1975).
The record in the present case reveals that appellee Urroz had not started his crop dusting business at the time of the breach which occurred when the aircraft he sought to purchase was not delivered.
Accordingly, he was not entitled to an award of lost profits. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.; A & P Bakery Supply & Equipment Co.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to damages.
The trial court should insure that the issue of lost profits is not submitted to the jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forest's Mens Shop and Ladies Den of Stuart v. Schmidt, 536 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…such damages is proof, by competent evidence, that the business had earned profits for a reasonable time before the occurrence of the wrong complained of. E.F.K. Collins Corp. v. S.M.M.G., Inc., 464 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Murciano v. Urroz, 455 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); A & P Bakery Supply & Equipment Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In other words, “[i]n order to recover lost profits, there must be an on-going business with an established sales record and proven ability to r…
-
E.F.K. Collins Corp. v. S.M.M.G., Inc., 464 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…at appellee’s game room by attracting more game players into the building. It is axiomatic that to establish lost profits, a litigant must prove that his business has earned profits for a reasonable time anteri- or to the breach. Murciano v. Urroz, 455 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Born v. Goldstein, 450 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While a trial judge is vested with reasonable discretion in awarding damages, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded. U.S. Home Corp. v. Sunc…
-
DON Carlos Foods, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 517 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…he judgment in favor of ap-pellee, Liquid Carbonic Corporation, entered upon rendition of the jury’s verdict. We find no merit in appellant’s contentions that the court should have allowed testimony pertaining to lost profits, see Murciano v. Urroz, 455 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and should have denied appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment on the fraudulent inducement claim. As to Liquid Carbonic’s cross-appeal, we agree that the trial court should have instructed the jury on enforceable warran…
Authorities Cited
- New Amsterdam Cas. Co. & C. E. Yocam v. Util. Battery Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Caves v. State, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1975)
- World Ins. Co. v. Wright, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1975)
- A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Salameh K. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)