KT'S KAR KARE, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
R. SCOTT LAING, ESQUIRE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-03-10
No. 91-3277
STONE, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
617 So. 2d 325 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

KT's Kar Kare appealed a judgment awarding damages to Laing for alleged violations of Florida's Motor Vehicle Repair Act regarding an engine conversion estimate. The court reversed, holding that KT's handwritten note substantially complied with the statutory written estimate requirement.


Holding

KT's handwritten note substantially complied with the statutory requirement for a written estimate under Chapter 559, and therefore KT did not violate the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act.


Headnotes

[1] A handwritten estimate for motor vehicle repair may substantially comply with statutory requirements if it clearly states the work to be done, the cost, and any excluded…

[2] A motor vehicle repair shop does not violate the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act by failing to provide a separate written estimate when a handwritten note clearly outlin…

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

Key Quotes

“KT provided Laing with a handwritten note that stated what would be done, how much it would cost, and what would not be done.”

Describes the substantive content of KT's estimate, establishing the basis for finding substantial compliance.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

KT sold Laing a used Jaguar that required engine replacement. The parties agreed to replace the twelve-cylinder Jaguar engine with a Chevrolet Corvett…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BRESCHER, GEORGE A., Associate Judge.

BRESCHER, GEORGE A., Associate Judge.

The appellant, KT’s Kar Kare, Inc. (KT), appeals an adverse judgment for damages based upon a violation of Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes (Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act).

The basic facts in this case are that KT sold the appellee, Laing, a used Jaguar automobile which subsequently required the installation of a replacement engine. The parties agreed that the twelve cylinder Jaguar engine would be replaced with a Chevrolet Corvette engine. KT sent Laing a handwritten estimate which quoted a price of $3,994.60 as representing the amount that it would charge Laing for the engine conversion kit and the labor involved to install the engine. This estimate also stated that Laing would be responsible for obtaining an engine and all other parts necessary for the conversion other than for the conversion kit itself and labor. Laing sent the money and thereafter a representative of KT came from Texas to Palm Beach County, Florida and completed the engine conversion. Laing purchased an engine and all of the other necessary additional parts from a local Chevrolet dealer and the total amount of monies paid by Laing to accomplish the engine conversion was $8,841.35, of which $3,994.60 was paid to KT.

Laing filed suit alleging among other things a violation of Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes known as the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. The trial court found that KT had in fact violated Chapter 559 by failing to provide a written estimate, by failing to provide an opportunity to Laing to waive the written estimate, and by failing to make reference on the estimate that the costs would exceed any estimates. The trial court awarded damages to Laing in the amount of $10,918.31 which represented the costs to Laing of the repair and prejudgment interest. Various other claims put forth by Laing were denied. KT appeals and Laing cross-appeals.

Various issues have been raised in the appeal, including long-arm jurisdiction over KT and whether or not KT is in fact a motor vehicle repair shop as contemplated in the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. However, we find that a more elemental issue is dispositive of this case. KT provided Laing with a handwritten note that stated what would be done, how much it would cost, and what would not be done. Specifically, KT would charge $3,994.60 for the conversion kit and for the labor to install the engine. Laing would have to provide for a location where the conversion could be completed and would be responsible for obtaining the engine and other necessary parts. Laing agreed to the terms in the handwritten note and both parties went on thereafter to fulfill their obligations under this agreement.

We find that under these circumstances KT’s handwritten note does substantially comply with the requirement for a written estimate, and that therefore there has been no violation of Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes. Based upon the foregoing we need not consider the other matters raised by the appellant, and we find that the issues raised by the cross-appeal are without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellant KT’s Kar Kare, Inc. STONE, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Safari Tours v. Pasco, 255 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
    …See, e.g., Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that when repair shop provides proper written estimate, oral authorization for additional repair work does not violate statute); KT’s Kar Kare, Inc. v. Laing, 617 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that handwritten estimate substantially complied with requirements of section 559.905 where both parties agreed to it); Lieberman v. Collision Specialists, Inc., 526 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding t…
  • Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco, Inc., 85 F.4th 1136 (11th Cir. 2023)
    …ants also cite to other Florida decisions that allowed a non-compliant repair shop to recover the reasonable value of its repairs. See Lieberman v. Collision Specialists, Inc., 526 So. 2d 102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987); KT's Kar Kare, Inc. v. Laing, 617 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). Defendants contend that because Glassco prepared a “zero to the customer” estimate which was signed by each customer, Glassco is entitled to compensation for the repairs it performed. Defendants argue that because th…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw