TELTEC SAVING COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
TELSAVE LEASING GROUP, ET AL., 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.
Teltec appealed a final judgment that conflicted with the jury verdict by finding a contract existed based on an unappealed January 1980 agreement, when the jury found no contract based on the April 1980 agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded, directing entry of judgment consistent with the jury verdict finding no contract and ordering repayment of moneys.
No. The trial court's final judgment conflicted with the jury verdict and must be reversed. The jury verdict finding no ratification of the April 1980 agreement entitled Teltec to prevail, and the trial court was required to enter judgment declaring no contract existed and ordering repayment of moneys, plus interest.
[1] A jury verdict finding that no contract exists between the parties requires the trial court to enter a judgment declaring the absence of a contract and ordering repayment…
[2] A counterclaim is properly tried by a jury when a special interrogatory verdict is submitted to the 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“the jury answered the first of three special interrogatory questions, i.e., that the "Jeffrey Pardo Agreement" dated April 24, 1980 was not ratified by Teltec and Telsave, and did not answer the remaining two questions because, according to the verdict form, the jury deliberations were over upon such a finding”
Establishes the jury's finding and that the case should have been resolved based on this finding alone
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeltec and Telsave disputed whether a contract existed between them. The parties tried the case to a jury based on a claimed April 24, 1980 agreement …
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 Jury Verdict Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a final judgment in accord with the jury verdict rendered herein (a) finding that no contract exists between the parties, and (b) ordering the appellant Teltec Saving Communications Company, etc. [Teltec] to repay $100,000 to the appellees Telsave Leasing Group, et al. [Telsave], less payments already made, plus interest. We reach this result based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the appellant Teltec’s counterclaim was properly tried by a jury, at the conclusion of which an agreed-upon special interrogatory verdict was submitted to the jury. See Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, 131 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
Second, the jury answered the first of three special interrogatory questions, i.e., that the “Jeffrey Pardo Agreement” dated April 24, 1980 was not ratified by Teltec and Telsave, and did not answer the remaining two questions because, according to the verdict form, the jury deliberations were over upon such a finding. This was so because, as all agreed at trial, there was no contract between the parties if the April 24, 1980 agreement, stated above, was not ratified by the parties and Teltec was entitled to prevail in the cause.
Third, there being no contract between the parties, the trial court was required to enter a judgment declaring this to be so and ordering that the appellant Teltec repay certain moneys previously given to it by the appel-lees, plus interest, in the aborted effort to form a contract between the parties.
Fourth, the final judgment under review does not accomplish this result; on the contrary, it contains findings and reaches results which are not consistent with the jury verdict. Specifically, the final judgment finds — in conflict with the jury verdict — that a contract exists between the parties, and declares certain rights therein, by virtue of a prior January 14,1980 agreement that was never tried below and which the parties, in fact, abandoned.1 It therefore follows that the final judgment under review must be reversed and the cause remanded. See Bessent v. Board of Bond Trustees, 92 Fla. 292, 294-95, 109 So. 597, 598 (1926).
Reversed and remanded.
. Ordinarily, a new trial would, at the very least, appear warranted as the appellant has plainly been denied its right to a jury trial on the issue of whether it breached the alleged January agreement. Since, however, the parties abandoned this agreement and the case was tried to the jury on the theory that the April 24, 1980 alleged agreement was the only claimed contract in the case, a new trial is not required herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Olin's, Inc. v. AVIS Rental CAR Sys. OF Fla., 131 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Bessent v. Bd. of Bond Trs. of Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. No. One of Alachua Cnty., 92 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1926)