JEANETTE TAVORMINA, TRUSTEE FOR G & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Jeanette Tavormina, as trustee for G & Sons Construction, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Dade County on her contract dispute. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Tavormina's contract was not exclusive because the County had awarded an identical contract to a second bidder in the same bidding process, and therefore there was no breach for the County's failure to use Tavormina's hauling services.
The contract was not exclusive and therefore not a 'requirements' contract because the County awarded an identical contract to a second bidder in the same bidding process. Consequently, there was no breach for the County's failure to use Tavormina's hauling services, as all hauling was performed by contractors under separate blanket purchase orders for hauling services only.
[1] A contract is not a "requirements" contract if the record demonstrates that the same contract for identical materials at the same delivery site was awarded to a second bi…
[2] A party's acknowledgment of the factual correctness of an opponent's proffer regarding the performance of hauling services can be accepted as part of the record.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This fact, being uncontested, clearly shows that Plaintiff's contract was not intended to be exclusive and therefore is not a "requirements" contract.”
Establishes the key finding that the presence of an identical contract awarded to a second bidder demonstrates the contract was not exclusive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior reversal and remand in this case, both parties moved for summary judgment. The County presented an affidavit with exhibits showing t…
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 Requirements Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following our opinion and decision reported in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) the matter reoccurred in the trial court. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court again awarded summary judgment in favor of the county. The summary judgment reads in part as follows:
“... This Court has previously entered a Summary Judgment in favor of the County which was reversed in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), because the record failed to reveal whether the County had awarded a similar contract to anyone other than Plaintiff. This issue of exclusivity was addressed twice — first with respect to whether the contract in question is a “requirements” contract and, secondly, with respect to whether the contract included hauling services.
The County has filed an Affidavit with attached exhibits which show that the identical contract, for the identical materials, at the same delivery site, was awarded to a second bidder as part of the same bidding process. This fact, being uncontested, clearly shows that Plaintiff’s contract was not intended to be exclusive and therefore is not a “requirements” contract. Further, since there is no exclusivity, there is also no breach for failure to use Plaintiff’s services for hauling. However, on this latter point, Defendant requested leave to supplement the record to show that all hauling of fill was accomplished by use of contractors operating under other blanket purchase orders which related solely to hauling services and did not include the supply of any fill material. Plaintiff acknowledged that the County’s proffer on this point was factually correct. The Court accordingly accepts the County’s proffer as part of the record in this cause.”
We find no error and affirm. Mid-south Packers, Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc., 761 F. 2d 1117 (5th Cir.1985); Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., 589 F. 2d 451 (9th Cir.1979); Propane Industrial, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 429 F.Supp. 214 (W.D.Mo.1977); Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Donald B. Ludwig Co., 144 N.J.Super 556, 366 A. 2d 721 (1976); Anno. 96 A.L.R.3d 1275, 1281; Anno. 26 A.L.R.2d 1139, 1148; compare Jenkins v. City Ice and Fuel Company, 118 Fla. 795, 160 So. 215 (1935).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. The City Ice & Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1935)
- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., 589 F.2d 451 (9th Cir. 1979)
- Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985)
- Jeanette Tavormina for G & Sons Constr., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 475 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)