TANNING RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DON SUNTAN CORPORATION, A HAWAIIAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Tanning Research Laboratories disputed with Don Suntan Corporation over the interpretation of "net profits derived from sales of suntan lotion products" in their contract. The court determined the contract was not ambiguous as a matter of law and reversed the trial court's submission of the interpretation issue to the jury, holding that "cost of products sold" includes costs at both the appellant's Hawaiian branch facility and its Florida home facility that are fairly attributable to Hawaiian-manufactured products.
The contract is not legally ambiguous and should have been interpreted as a matter of law by the court rather than submitted to the jury. The phrase "cost of products sold" includes costs at both the appellant's Hawaiian branch facility and costs at its Florida home facility that are fairly attributable to products manufactured in Hawaii, including the cost of providing the manager's working facilities and employees.
[1] A contract is not legally ambiguous when its terms can be interpreted as a matter of law.
[2] When a contract is not ambiguous, its interpretation should not be submitted to a jury.
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“From an examination of the total contract itself, we find the contract not to be legally ambiguous and the issues should not have been submitted to the jury.”
The court's holding that contract interpretation was a matter of law, not a jury question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a contract containing provisions for calculating "net profits derived from sales of suntan lotion products" defined as gross sales pri…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves a dispute as to an interpretation of the following two sentences of a contract:
For purposes of this agreement, the term “net profits derived from sales of suntan lotion products” shall mean the gross sales price of all such suntan lotion products sold, less the cost of such products sold. The cost of the products sold shall include the cost of materials, the cost of direct labor, and overhead, administrative, and selling expenses attributable to the products.
The trial court found the contract to be ambiguous and submitted the interpretation to the jury. In effect the jury interpreted “the cost of the products sold” to relate only to “the cost of material, the cost of direct labor, and overhead, administration, and selling expenses” at and to appellant’s branch production facility in Hawaii.
From an examination of the total contract itself, we find the contract not to be legally ambiguous and the issues should not have been submitted to the jury. Instead, the contract should have been interpreted as a matter of law. We further interpret the phrase “the cost of products sold” as relating not only to costs at appellant’s branch production facility in Hawaii but also to those costs at appellant’s home facility in Florida that are fairly “attributable to the products” manufactured at appellant’s branch in Hawaii. The cost of providing the manager of the Hawaiian branch with working facilities and employees as set forth in paragraph VI of the contract are also part of the cost of products manufactured at that branch and part of “the cost of products sold.” This interpretation renders moot other issues presented on this appeal.
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tanning Research Labs., Inc. v. DON Suntan Corp., 482 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…costs under section 57.041(1), Florida Statutes, to the appellee as the party recovering judgment. The judgment recovered by the ap-pellee below was reversed by this court on appeal. See Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Don Suntan Corporation, 482 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Therefore, the cost judgment is also reversed and this cause remanded for reconsideration of the matter of costs. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.…