LANSONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AAC SYDCO, 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 court held that the trial court erred in awarding the full contract amount as damages for breach, as there was no proof of lost profits.
Plaintiff AAC sued defendant for breach of an air conditioning service contract. The trial court awarded AAC the full remaining contract amount, despi…
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 Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The record in this case does not support the $13,000 judgment entered for the plaintiff, AAC SYDCO, Inc. (AAC), after a non-jury trial. Although AAC submitted adequate proof that the defendant breached the air conditioning service contract by terminating AAC’s services seven months before the time called for in the contract, there was no proof as to the extent of the profit, if any, AAC would have derived had it continued to perform services. Thus, the award to AAC of the total amount of the monthly payments remaining due under the contract for which AAC performed no services and incurred no expenses was error. AAC’s argument that it stood to make some profit on the service contract in the winter months quite obviously does not support a judgment, such as that entered below, that the seven monthly payments remaining due under the contract were all profit,1 See U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utilities, Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
There is ample evidence, however, to support the trial court’s judgment to the extent of $4,038.21, consisting of amounts due and owing to AAC for services already performed and parts supplied as reflected on invoices submitted to the defendant.
Accordingly, the amount of the judgment is modified to $4,038.21, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.
. The entire testimony on this score came from Mr. Sanford Stern, AAC’s president:
“Q. Was that a profitable procedure for your company?
"A. No, not really. We make some profit on the parts but basically when we get a situation like this where there’s a lot of old equipment we try to put it back into shape as best we can, take it through the summertime and try to keep it going as best we can.
"And, of course, in the wintertime when the useage factor is much lower we’re able to turn a profit on it. I don't see where we're excessive at all. Two or three motors, two or three compressors out of 25 accounts is nothing."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Life Ins. Co. v. Fickes, 613 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…no cases in Florida which have sustained the award of an attorney’s fee under section 627.428 (or its precursors), where no lawsuit by the beneficiary or insured was filed before payment of the proceeds. In Wollard v. Lloyd and Companies of Lloyd’s, 489 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1983), Sanchez v. American Ambassador Cas. Co., 559 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and Avila v. Latin American Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), relied upon by appellee in this case, the insured or beneficiary had fi…
Authorities Cited
- U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utils., Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)