ACR ELECTRONICS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SWITLIK PARACHUTE COMPANY, INC., A NEW JERSEY 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.
The court held that the seller was entitled to a contract price increase credit but that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded from the date of wrongful termination, only from when the buyer actually incurred damages.
A buyer and seller had a contract for parts. The seller attempted to terminate the contract by refusing to sell at the contract price, forcing the buy…
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 Contract Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of a contract dispute between the buyer and seller of parts used in the manufacture of a product by the buyer. The seller attempted to terminate the contract by refusing to sell at the contract price, resulting in the buyer having to pay more to purchase the parts from another source. The trial court determined that the seller did breach the contract and awarded buyer damages. We affirm the judgment in all respects except as to the amount of damages.
The seller was entitled under the contract to obtain a 3% price increase in 1991. We conclude that the seller should have received a credit for this 3% increase from the point in time that it attempted to impose it in February of 1991.
We also conclude that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from February 1, 1991, when seller wrongfully attempted to terminate the contract and stopped supplying the buyer with the product. Since the buyer did not incur its damages until after that date, as it purchased the product from another source, at an increased cost, buyer was not entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the breach. Prejudgment interest would only be recoverable here from the dates buyer sustained damages by having to pay more for this product when it purchased it elsewhere. Cf., Alvarado v. Rice, 614 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1993).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
STONE and KLEIN, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SUN Power Diesel, Inc. v. Fla. Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc., 701 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ngine blocks. We reverse the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest to appellant. See Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 653 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1995), approving, 638 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); ACR Elecs., Inc. v. Switlik Parachute Co., 624 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also National Educ. Ctrs., Inc. v. Kirkland, 678 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It is apparent from a review of the trial exhibits that the jury’s determination of damages to appellant was based upon the goods rejected as…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Darrin O'Neill McCLAIN, 614 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1993)