KNIGHT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
C.R. INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 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.
Knight Energy appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial on damages in a breach of contract case. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding a jury verdict awarding $91,000 in lost profits to the nonbreaching party based on the contract price with no deductions for overhead costs.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial and the $91,000 damages award. A nonbreaching party seeking lost profits is entitled to recover the contract price less deductions for costs and expenses necessary to fully perform; where the nonbreaching party's unequivocal testimony established that no additional costs or expenses were required, the jury verdict was reasonable and properly supported by evidence.
[1] A nonbreaching party seeking lost profits is entitled to the contract price less any deduction for costs and expenses necessary to fully perform.
[2] A jury's award of damages will not be overturned if no reasonable juror could return the verdict as awarded.
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“The nonbreaching party seeking lost profits is entitled to the contract price less any deduction for costs and expenses necessary to fully perform.”
Establishes the legal standard for calculating lost profits damages in breach of contract cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued Defendant Knight Energy for breach of a written contract. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for directed verdict on an alleged…
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 Written Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Knight Energy has appealed the trial court’s decision denying a motion for a new trial on damages for breach of the written contract. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict as to the breach of an alleged oral contract.
We affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the oral contract. We also agree with the trial court that Plaintiff has presented sufficient proof to establish his lost profits claim with regard to the breach of the written contract. The nonbreaching party seeking lost profits is entitled to the contract price less any deduction for costs and expenses necessary to fully perform. Adams v. Dreyfus Interstate Development, 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Here although the damage award is comprised in large part by totalling the contract price, Plaintiff testified unequivocally that there were no deductible costs or expenses necessary to fully perform this contract.
Q. Do you remember Mr. Morrow’s calculations of ten percent of overhead as being an estimate of what the overhead runs? A. [Yes], Q. Did you agree with that number?
A. It’s a very good estimate.
Q. So coming back to these calculations of the $91,000 with ten percent overhead that [defense counsel] was just referring to, would that apply also?
A. On that point, no.
Q. Could you explain why not.
A. It is already included in our profits at that point.
Q. Well, what I’m asking you is how would that affect your $90,000? Would it lower it another ten percent?
A. No.
Q. Could you explain why?
A. Well, like I tried to explain to [defense counsel], our business already has a fixed overhead in it no matter if that person is already there, or if you’re talking, make [sic] a telephone call to order something, it’s no extra. You’re already paying that person’s salary. The phone bill is already being paid. So there is no additional costs being associated with it. Defense counsel questioned Plaintiff thoroughly in an effort to demonstrate that some overhead expense must have been required to perform this contract.
The jury accepted Plaintiff’s testimony and awarded the $91,000 requested. We are not in a position to state that no reasonable juror could return the verdict as awarded.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and FARMER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RKR Motors, Inc. v. Associated Unif. Rental & Linen Supply, Inc., 995 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…his calculation on the actual costs that Associated Uniform did not incur due to RKR Motors’ termination of the contracts. In support of its position, Associated Uniform relies on Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. C.R. International Enterprises, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On the other hand, RKR Motors’ expert concluded that all of Associated Uniform’s fixed costs related to the contract must be considered and RKR Motors’ relative portion must be included in the computation. In support of its posi…
-
James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…pers, Inc. v. Fine Decorators, Inc., 862 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); RKR Motors, Inc. v. Associated Uniform Rental & Linen Supply, Inc., 995 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); and Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. C.R. International Enterprises, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Both Boca Developers and RKR Motors require a plaintiff to account for overhead expenses. “Requiring a deduction of a share of fixed costs related to the performance of a contract allows for a true measurement of the amount the…
-
Boca Developers, Inc. v. Fine Decorators, Inc., 862 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…for its argument that it can allocate its fixed overhead entirely to private decorating jobs, thus artificially increasing its profit on model apartments, Fine relies entirely on Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. C.R. International Enterprises, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In Knight, however, “Plaintiff testified unequivocally that there were no deductible costs or expenses necessary to fully perform this contract.” Unlike in Knight, there was no testimony in the present case that the fixed…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. G. E. Drywall, Inc., 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Adams v. Dreyfus Interstate Dev. Corp., 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)