JUDITH D. KNEALE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAY BEN INC., D/B/A MODERNAGE FURNITURE, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Kneale purchased two chairs on sale for $97.50 each but the store failed to deliver them despite receiving full payment. The trial court awarded only the return of the purchase price plus interest, but Florida law requires awarding the 'benefit of the bargain'—the difference between contract price and market price—when goods are not delivered.
The measure of damages for nondelivery of contracted goods must include the benefit of the bargain, which is the difference between the contract price and the market price. The trial and appellate courts erred in awarding only the return of the purchase price.
[1] The measure of damages for breach of contract for the nondelivery of goods is the difference between the contract price and the market price.
[2] A court's failure to award the benefit of the bargain in a breach of contract case constitutes a miscarriage of justice.
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“It is an essential, indeed elementary, requirement of the law of contracts that the measure of damages for breach includes granting the innocent party the 'benefit of the bargain,'”
Establishes the fundamental principle that contract damages must include the benefit of the bargain rather than merely returning the purchase price
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Kneale purchased two chairs from Modernage Furniture at a sales price of $97.50 each and paid the full purchase price in cash. The store had overs…
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 Benefit Of The Bargain cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Ms. Kneale bought two chairs from Mod-emage Furniture which were on sale for $97.50 apiece. Because the store had oversold that particular chair, it failed to deliver the items to Ms. Kneale, although she had paid the full purchase price in cash. In the county court, where Ms. Kneale sued for the admitted breach of contract, the parties stipulated that the market price of the chairs was $147.57 each, or $50.07 more than the sales price. Nonetheless, the trial judge awarded only the return of the sales price, plus interest. The appellate division of the circuit court per curiam affirmed this conclusion.
It is an essential, indeed elementary, requirement of the law of contracts that the measure of damages for breach includes granting the innocent party the “benefit of the bargain,” 17 Fla.Jur.2d Damages § 28 (1980), which, specifically in the case of the nondelivery of contracted for goods, involves the difference between the contract price and the market price. Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173 (1921); § 672.713(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). The failure of the circuit court to adhere to this basic rule1 resulted in a miscarriage of justice which requires that the instant petition for certiorari be granted. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982); see Mitchell v. State, 516 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Accordingly, the decision of affirmance is quashed with directions to the circuit court to require the county court to award the additional sum of $100.14, plus interest and costs in all three courts.
Certiorari granted.
. Modernage's response to the petition for certiorari here does not even seek to justify the decisions below under the applicable law. Instead, it seems to imply that the small amount involved does not justify our consideration of the case. We reject any such idea. There is nothing in the stated requirements for the invocation of our certiorari jurisdiction — or any other part of our duties — which turns on the amount involved. We do not feel put upon to be required to consider any case, however apparently insignificant, in which our jurisdiction, as here, has been properly invoked. Indeed, it is the defendant which, by insisting in three separate courts upon a position which is utterly devoid of merit, has caused whatever unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources this case involves.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…09) (granting certiorari on second-tier review of circuit court appellate division per curiam affirmance), review dismissed, 31 So. 3d 782 (Fla.2010); Auerbach v. City of Miami, 929 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (same); Kneale v. Jay Ben, Inc., 527 So. 2d 917, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (same); TBOM Mortg. Holding, LLC v. Brown, 59 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (granting mandamus when requirements of law unequivocally require trial court to enter particular order); Comcoa, Inc. v. Coe, 587 So. 2d 474, 477 (F…1 / 2
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…curiam affirmance); State v. Richard, 610 So. 2d 107, 107-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding the trial court applied the wrong version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 and granting relief from a per curiam affirmance); Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (granting certiorari from per curiam affir-mance of circuit court appellate division). . Specifically, section 627.409, Florida Statutes (2003), states: 627.409. Representations in applications; warranties (1) Any statement or…
-
Auerbach v. City OF Miami, 929 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ea, cf. Pinecrest Lakes, Inc., 795 So. 2d at 198 (county’s interpretation of own comprehensive plan entitled to no weight); or (e) that the violation was, in the broad scheme of things, too minor to warrant our attention. Cf. Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917, 918 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(quashing circuit court per curiam affirmance of county court judgment which erred in denying plaintiff $100.14 in damages for breach of contract). Notwithstanding any or all of this, it is the unshirkable obligation of t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1921)
- Mitchell v. State, 516 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)