16 283 ALBA
v.
PUROCLEAN OF NO BROWARD
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.
Pro se appellant Dawn Alba appealed from a final judgment for $2,427.61 in favor of Puroclean of North Broward, Inc. for breach of contract related to unpaid emergency water remediation services. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Alba's promise to pay was supported by valid consideration despite Puroclean's alleged preexisting duty to a third party.
Alba's promise to pay was enforceable and supported by valid consideration. Although Puroclean owed a preexisting duty to the third party, the preexisting duty rule does not apply when the duty is owed to someone other than the promisor. Puroclean suffered detriment by forgoing the opportunity to avoid its obligation to the third party in exchange for Alba's promise to pay, and Alba received the benefit of Puroclean's services.
[1] For a contract to be valid and enforceable, the parties must provide consideration.
[2] Consideration is defined as a benefit accruing to one party or a detriment suffered by the other.
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“Consideration is defined as "some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other."”
Establishes the definition of consideration required for an enforceable contract under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlba contracted with Puroclean for emergency water remediation services on her condominium. Puroclean allegedly also had a separate contractual obliga…
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 Detriment cases and more on FLexlaw
Joshua Widlansky 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431
PER CURIAM.
Pro se appellant Dawn Alba ("Alba") appeals from a Final Judgment against her in the amount of $2,427.61. The trial court found that Alba breached a contract with appellee, Puroclean of North Broward, Inc. ("Puroclean"), when she failed to pay for emergency water remediation services. We find no error and AFFIRM the trial court. We write to discuss Alba's argument that her promise to pay Puroclean lacked consideration because Puroclean was already obliged to remediate her condominium under an alleged separate contract with a third party.¹
To create a valid, enforceable contract, the parties must provide consideration. See 11 Fla. Jur. 2d Contracts § 76 (2017) (citing Kaufman v. Harder, 354 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). Consideration is defined as "some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other." 11 Fla. Jur. 2d Contracts § 76 (2017) (citing Shaffer v. Ricci, 603 So. 2d 566, 567-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)).
The preexisting duty rule provides generally that performance of a preexisting duty to a promisor is not consideration. Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However, performance of a preexisting duty may be consideration if the duty is not owed to the promisor, but is instead owed to a third party, even if that performance is the same. Scherer v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 746 F. Supp. 73 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 73, comment d). In such three-party cases, courts have found consideration by reasoning that the promisee gives up the opportunity to attempt to avoid performance of the duty to the third party. See Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F. 2d 856, 860 (10th Cir. 1968).
In this case, we find the preexisting duty rule to be inapplicable. Puroclean was not under a preexisting duty to Alba when Alba promised to pay for the remediation, but instead owed a duty to the third party. By promising to provide its services in exchange for Alba's promise to pay, Puroclean forwent the opportunity to seek to avoid performance vis-a-vis the third party. Thus,
N 1 The trial court declined to find whether there was a contract between Puroclean and the third party. For the purposes of this appeal only, we assume such a contract existed. Page 2 of 3 Puroclean suffered a "detriment" or "loss." Alba received the "benefit" of Puroclean's fulfillment of its contractual duty to restore her condominium. Accordingly, Alba's promise to pay Puroclean was enforceable, and the trial court's ruling to that effect was not error. Puroclean's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to determine and award a reasonable amount of appellate attorney's fees.
ROWE, SMALL, NUTT, JJ., concur. Page 3 of 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
DAWN ALBA, Appellant,
V.
PUROCLEAN OF NORTH BROWARD, INC. Appellee.
APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL): AY CASE NO.: 502016AP900283CAXXMB L.T. No.: 502016CC001939XXXXMB
Opinion/Decision filed: APR 2 4 2018
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., 366 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Kaufman v. Harder, 354 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Scherer v. Laborers'intern. Union of N. Am., 746 F. Supp. 73 (N.D. Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Cohen, 404 F.2d 856 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Shaffer v. Ricci, 603 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)