THE IVENS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HOBÉ CIE LTD., A NEW YORK 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.
Ivens Corporation appealed a judgment in favor of Hobé Cie Ltd. in a breach of contract action involving the sale and resale of pearl necklaces. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting Ivens's jurisdictional challenges, its challenge to the lost profits award, and Hobé's cross-appeal for additional damages.
The court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction because Hobé had standing as the actual distributor, FIPA was not an indispensable party, and Ivens waived the issue by not properly pleading it. The court affirmed the lost profits award as supported by sufficient evidence. The court affirmed the denial of lost profits for 1987-88 because Hobé could not perform due to FIPA's unwillingness to supply necklaces.
[1] A plaintiff has standing to sue for breach of contract if it distributed goods purchased from a supplier and resold them to the defendant.
[2] Failure to join an indispensable party must be properly pleaded in a motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense, otherwise the issue is waived for appellate review.
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 record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff had standing to bring the instant lawsuit in its own right as the distributor of pearl necklaces which it purchased from FIPA, N.V. and resold at a profit to the defendant”
Establishes that Hobé had independent standing to sue despite the upstream supplier relationship with FIPA, N.V.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHobé Cie Ltd., a distributor, purchased pearl necklaces from FIPA, N.V. and resold them to Ivens Corporation at a profit. Ivens breached the contract.…
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 Lost Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff Hobe’ Cie Ltd. in a breach of contract action. We affirm the final judgment in all respects based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we reject the defendant Iv-ens Corporation’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the contract rights of the parties. The record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff had standing to bring the instant lawsuit in its own right as the distributor of pearl necklaces which it purchased from FIPA, N.V. and resold at a profit to the defendant. Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, (1) FIPA, N.V. was not an indispensable party, and (2) in any event, the defendant did not properly plead the failure to join an indispensable party in either its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint or as an affirmative defense in its answer, and consequently has waived the point for appellate review. See In re Best Film & Video Corp., 46 B.R. 861 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1985); Colonial Sec., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 1159 (S.D.N.Y.1978); Hercules Inc. v. Dynamic Export Corp., 71 F.R.D. 101 (S.D.N.Y.1976); W.R. Cooper, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 512 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Engel Mortgage Co. v. Dowd, 355 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1978); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(7), (h)(2), 1.210(a).
Second, we reject the defendant Ivens Corporation’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff lost profits. There was clearly sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded. See Vagabond Container, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 356 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1978); Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cayuga Harvester, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 95 A.D.2d 5, 465 N.Y.S.2d 606 (1983); Borne Chem. Co. v. Dictrow, 85 A.D.2d 646, 445 N.Y.S.2d 406 (1981); § 672.708, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Finally, we reject the plaintiff Hobe’ Cie Ltd.’s contention on its cross appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to award the plaintiff lost profits for the years 1987-88. As the trial court correctly found, the plaintiff could not have delivered the pearl necklaces to the defendant for 1987-88 because FIPA, N.V., its supplier, was unwilling to provide such necklaces to the plaintiff; consequently, the plaintiff could not recover lost profits for 1987-88 because it could not show an ability to perform under the contract for those years. Hospital Mortgage Group v. First Prudential Dev. Corp., 411 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1982); Blue Lakes Apartments, Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705, 708-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Cohen v. Champlain Towers N. Assoc., 452 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1985).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horizon S. Master Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walter B. West and wife, 591 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…of appellants’ argument, however, it fails to carry the day on this appeal for two reasons. Appellants never raised failure to join an indispensable party in the trial court. Therefore, they may not do so on appeal. See Ivens Corp. v. Hobé Cie Ltd., 555 So. 2d 425 (Fla.3d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990); Engel Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Dowd, 355 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1978). Even if this issue could be raised for the first time on appeal, appellants…
-
Ward v. Sikes, 732 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…nce Square Association, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1987); In re Estate of Barry, 689 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Seaside Community Development Corp. v. Edwards, 573 So. 2d 142, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ivens Corp. v. Hobe Cie Ltd., 555 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990); Engel Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Dowd, 355 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1978); GAC Properties, Inc. v. Carmine, 258 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). AFFIRM…
-
AFP 103 Corp. v. Common Wealth Tr. Servs., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Hosp. Mortg. Grp. v. First Prudential Dev. Corp., 411 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1982)
- Blue Lakes Apts., Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Tech Corp. v. The Permutit Co., 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- W.R. Cooper, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach & Garcia-Allen Constr. Co., Inc., 512 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Engel Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Dowd, 355 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Vagabond Container, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 356 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Cohen v. Champlain Towers N. Assocs., 452 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)