JOHN D. YATES, JR. AND MRS. JOHN D. YATES, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD'S CARPET AND DRAPERIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Yateses hired a decorator who in turn hired Bernard's Carpet and Draperies to install carpeting. When the decorator failed to pay Bernard's, Bernard's sued the Yateses directly. The court held that Bernard's was a true subagent of the decorator, not the Yateses, and therefore the Yateses had no contractual or unjust enrichment liability to Bernard's.
The decorator was not an agent of the Yateses but rather an independent contractor, and Bernard's was a true subagent of the decorator, not of the Yateses. Therefore, the Yateses are not liable to Bernard's for compensation under either contract or unjust enrichment theory. The court reversed the judgment against the Yateses on Bernard's complaint but affirmed the denial of their counterclaim.
[1] A principal is not contractually liable to a subagent hired by an agent of the principal.
[2] A subagent is one hired to perform the work of the agent, not the work of the principal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 authorized employment of a subservant or other subagent does not thereby subject the principal to contractual liability to the subagent.”
Establishes the core legal principle that principals are not liable to true subagents for compensation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Yateses hired an interior decorator to refurnish their home. The decorator engaged Bernard's Carpet and Draperies to furnish and install carpeting…
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 Claim For Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Mr. and Mrs. John D. Yates, Jr., hired an interior decorator to refurnish and refurbish a recently-purchased home. The decorator engaged Bernard’s Carpet and Draperies, Inc., to furnish and install carpeting. The Yateses paid the decorator in full, who neglected to pay Bernard’s. The ensuing litigation, not involving the decorator, resulted in a judgment requiring the Yateses to pay Bernard’s and denying their counterclaim for damages caused by Bernard’s allegedly nailing the carpet to a Cuban marble floor. The question is whether the decorator was an agent of the Yateses in such a capacity as to bind them as principals to pay for labor and materials contracted for by the decorator. An alternative theory for recovery was unjust enrichment. Bernard’s was hired by the decorator to perform certain services in connection with the performance of the decorator’s contract with Mr. and Mrs. Yates. Bernard’s was a subagent. It is established that: “The authorized employment of a subservant or other subagent does not thereby subject the principal to contractual liability to the subagent....” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 458 (1958). See also Health Application Systems, Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 381 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
In those cases in which the principal has been held liable to a claim for compensation by the subagent, the facts usually demonstrate that the term “subagent” has been misapplied and that the second tier of agents are simply additional agents of the principal. To borrow an example: where the local manager of a store hires employees they do not become his agents nor is he liable for their compensation. They are not subagents. See Goodwin v. Glick, 139 Cal.App.2d 936, 294 P. 2d 192 (1956), and cases and authorities there cited on this issue. They become agents of the owner-principal.
Bernard’s was hired to do the work of the decorator, not the work of the Yates-es nor to work for the Yateses. Bernard’s was a true subagent; therefore, the Yates-es are not liable for compensation owing to it.
Nor are the Yateses liable in restitution or unjust enrichment. There is no implied contract here. While it may be unjust that Bernard’s was not paid for labor and materials, that injustice was not visited upon Bernard’s by the Yateses, who paid in full (and more) for the labor and materials furnished in connection with the decoration of their home, but by the decorator who hired Bernard’s.
This is one of the results which various mechanic’s lien laws were fashioned to avoid. However, such laws contain devices to alert and therefore to offer some measure of protection to the owner as well as to laborers and materialmen. The unavailability of a mechanic’s lien on the present facts leads perforce to denial of the claim for labor and materials made against the non-defaulting owner. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for appellants on appellee’s complaint. However, we affirm denial of the counterclaim.
REVERSED.
DELL, J., concurs.
WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.
WALDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I would indulge the presumption of correctness and affirm the judgment here appealed upon the authority of C.Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargrill, Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and Freeport Ridge Estates, Ltd. v. Reckner, 266 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Moreover, there was, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to support the judgment based upon the theory of implied contract or quantum meruit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commerce P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship & Forest-English, Inc. v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…just enrichment cannot exist “where payment has been made for the benefit conferred.” The payment to which we referred was the owner’s payment to the general contractor on the construction contract. See Yates v. Bernard’s Carpet and Draperies, Inc., 481 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Seegers v. Sprague, 70 Wis.2d 997, 236 N.W. 2d 227 (1975). We observed in Yates that while it may be unjust that a subcontractor was not paid for its services, that injustice was not visited upon the subcontractor by the owner w…1 / 2
-
Hillman Constr. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ses and allowed the owner to relet them at an increased rent. The contractor sought to allege a count for unjust enrichment, but the trial court ruled that the count did not state a cause of action, citing Yates v. Bernard’s Carpet & Draperies Inc., 481 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and Coffee Pot Plaza Partnership v. Arrow Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inc., 412 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are: (1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defen…
-
Elliot Zaleznik v. Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Inc., 576 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ily stop future payments. Had this information been disclosed to the subcontractors, it is obvious that they would not have performed this work without additional security. We distinguish this case from Yates v. Bernard’s Carpet and Draperies, Inc., 481 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), because the owner in that case paid an interior decorator for carpet and the decorator simply did not pay the carpet installer. The owner did not receive a benefit free of charge. III. THE EQUITABLE LIENS Under the theory of u…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Health Application Sys., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. & State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 381 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- C. Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Freeport Ridge Ests., Ltd. v. Reckner, 266 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)