RICHARD MAESTRELLI, APPELLANT,
v.
ARRIGONI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PREMIER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed judgment against defendant for material delivery, holding that a principal's liability for an agent's acts need not be explicitly pleaded as a separate theory of liability when the complaint alleges the legal effect of the agent's conduct.
A principal's liability for an agent's acts is not a separate theory of liability requiring specific pleading; one suing on a contract made by an agent need only allege the contract was made by the principal without explicitly referencing agency.
[1] A principal's liability for acts of an agent is not a separate theory of liability or cause of action requiring explicit pleading; a complaint alleging the legal effect o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff delivered material to a job site at the request of a third party, who was acting for and at the request of the defendant. The trial court fo…
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 Consent To Try Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff (appellee) alleged that he delivered material to a job site at the request of the defendant (appellant). The trial court held the defendant liable based on evidence that a third party requesting the material to be delivered by the plaintiff was acting for, on behalf of, and at the request of, the defendant. The defendant argues on appeal that the plaintiff erred in not alleging in his complaint that the third person was acting as agent for the defendant and that he should not be found liable on a theory of liability not framed by the pleadings, citing Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1985). We affirm.
A principal’s liability for the acts of his agent is not a “theory of liability”, in the sense of a cause of action, such as debt or express or implied contract that must be pleaded to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and to meet due process notice requirements. As a general rule, one suing upon a contract made for the defendant by an agent need not refer to the agency in the complaint but may merely allege the legal effect of the agent’s action by averring that the contract was made by the principal himself. See St. Andrew’s Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Fla. 192, 54 Am.Dec. 340 (1851); Annot., Necessity of alleging fact of agency in declaring upon contract made by party through agent, 89 ALR 895 (1934).
This case should also be affirmed because the matter of agency was tried by the express or implied consent of the parties within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hudson Pest Control, Inc. v. Westford Asset Mgmt., Inc., 622 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ove any losses, but not because of surrender by operation of law. AFFIRM. DIAMANTIS, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., dissents without opinion. . Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190; Hatcher v. Chandler, 589 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Maestrelli v. Arrigoni, Inc., 476 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). . See also Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (1944); Coast Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Deloach, 362 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). . FlaJur.2d Landlord and Tenant §§ 107; 110 (1982); Kanter v. Safra…
-
Dep't OF Revenue OF the State OF Fla. v. Vanjaria Enters., Inc., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ial with the other party’s consent and the court’s indulgence, or may amend the pleadings.”); Rosenberg v. [*255] Guardian Life Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988); Maestrelli v. Arrigoni, Inc., 476 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here, DOR failed to object to the introduction of evidence regarding whether its procedure for assessing taxes on multiple-use properties should have been promulgated as a rule. Evidence on the rule promulgation issue was introd…
-
Kratzer v. Reimiller, 552 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…dence on issues not raised in the pleadings is admitted at trial without objection, and a judgment is based on such evidence, the reviewing court should affirm, if the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. See Maestrelli v. Arrigoni, Inc., 476 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), which relied upon Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b). Although Maestrelli was not a dissolution case, more stringent pleading requirements should not be imposed on family law cases simply because of the nature of the litig…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. J.C. Cotton and Aubrey Jesse Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985)
- The Directors & Trs. of the St. Andrew's Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1851)