QUAYSIDE ASSOCIATES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND LA VILLE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
EDWARD TRIEFLER, 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.
Quayside Associates and La Ville appealed a jury verdict finding an implied contract (but no express contract) and awarding a real estate salesman damages based on the express contract terms. The court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported an implied contract claim and that a failed express contract could serve as evidence of damages in an implied contract action.
The court held that (1) sufficient evidence supported submission of the implied contract theory to the jury; (2) a jury's finding of an implied contract but no express contract is consistent with the settled rule that the law will not imply a contract where a valid express one exists; (3) a failed express contract can be considered as evidence of damages in an implied contract action; and (4) all general partners are not indispensable parties to an action against a limited partnership.
[1] A contract implied in fact may be found when there is sufficient evidence to support its existence, even if an express contract is not proven.
[2] A failed express contract can serve as evidence of damages in an action based on an implied contract.
Previewing 2 of 6 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's finding of a contract implied in fact and no express contract is consistent with the settled rule that the law will not imply a contract where a valid express one exists.”
Establishes that concurrent findings of no express contract and an implied contract are legally consistent and do not violate the rule against implying contracts when valid express contracts exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Triefler, a real estate salesman, sued for a sales commission based on two theories: an express contract and an implied contract. The jury retu…
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 Breach Of Express Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Plaintiff Edward Triefler, a real estate salesman, commenced this action for a sales commission. He alleged two theories: (1) an express contract and (2) an implied contract. The case was submitted to the jury on both theories. A verdict was returned, by a special interrogatory form, finding no express contract but finding a contract implied in fact and assessing damages based on terms the same as those of the alleged express contract. Quayside’s first point on appeal is that the jury, having found no express contract, could not award damages based on an implied contract absent proof of an implied contract and proof of the reasonable value of services rendered.
First, there was sufficient evidence of a contract implied in fact to make for a jury question. Second, there is nothing in the instruction given the jury which suggests, as Quayside argues, that the jury was directed to find an implied contract if it found no express contract. The jury’s finding of a contract implied in fact and no express contract is consistent with the settled rule that the law will not imply a contract where a valid express one exists. Moylan v. Estes, 102 So. 2d 855, 856 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 106 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1958).1
Second, an alleged express contract which fails as such for lack of proof may be considered as evidence of damages in an action based on an implied contract. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 156, 117 So. 853, 857 (1928). Although the jury found no express contract it could have, and obviously did, consider the failed express contract as evidence of the value of the services performed.
On the authority of section 620.30, Florida Statutes (1985), and Chase Lincoln First Bank v. Borinquen, Ltd., 494 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we also reject Quayside’s contention, as a separate issue, that all the general partners are indispensable parties to an action against a limited partnership.
The cross-appeal must be affirmed. A directed verdict on the fraud claim was correct because there was no evidence of fraud. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Stroud, 488 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (directed verdict at end of all evidence proper where there was no conflict in evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom); National Car Rental Sys. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same). Quayside demonstrated conclusively that the contract dispute did not rise to the level of an independent willful tort; therefore, summary judgment against Triefler on his claim for intentional infliction of mental distress was correct. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1985) (liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress found only where conduct is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency); Crenshaw v. Sarasota County Pub. Hosp. Bd., 466 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (there is no recovery for mental distress caused by breach of contract in absence of an independent willful tort).
Affirmed.
. It is said in Moylan that where a plaintiff declares on both an express contract and an implied contract covering the same transaction, he may be compelled to elect between the two causes of action. Here there was no demand for an election.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baron v. Ahmed M. Osman, 39 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…n on Contracts § 1:5 (4th ed. 2010). While the law will not recognize an implied-in-fact contract where an express contract exists, a contract may be inferred where an express contract fails for lack of proof. See Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). If no express or implied-in-fact contract exists, a party may recover under quasi-contract. Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). A quasi-contract, which is synonymous with unjust enr…
-
Schipani v. Seagraves, Inc., 772 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…eparate evidence of the value of the work performed was not offered at trial, the trial court considered the failed express contract as evidence of the value of the services performed. This was appropriate. See Quayside Associates, Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). I find CDS and Associates of Palm Beaches, Inc. v. 1711 Donna Road Associates, Inc., 743 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), inapplicable to this case. In that case, the court found that there was no contract between the parties,…
-
Hagans v. Merkin, 521 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nat Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Byrd, 256 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCARSON, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985)
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Moylan v. Sophronia I. Estes, 102 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Crenshaw v. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd., 466 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v. Borinquen, Ltd., 494 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Knight's Rivera Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kirk, 106 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1958)
- Bush v. DuBREE, 466 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Indus. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stroud, 488 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)