FORMS AND SURFACES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WELBRO CONSTRUCTORS, INC., ETC., 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.
Forms and Surfaces, a tile supplier, appeals a denial of its motion to transfer venue in a breach of contract dispute with Welbro Constructors over allegedly defective stone. The court holds that venue for breach of contract actions accrues where the defective goods were delivered, not where the defect was discovered, and therefore Orange County was an improper venue.
A cause of action for breach of contract accrues for venue purposes where the alleged breach occurred—specifically, where the allegedly defective or nonconforming goods were delivered. The breach occurred upon delivery in Dade County, not where the defect was discovered in Orange County, making Orange County an improper venue.
[1] A cause of action for breach of contract accrues, for venue purposes, where the alleged breach occurred.
[2] For venue purposes, an action for breach of contract based on the supply of allegedly defective or nonconforming goods accrues where the goods were delivered.
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 general rule is that a cause of action for breach of contract "accrues," for venue purposes, where the alleged breach occurred.”
Establishes the foundational principle governing venue 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 intelligenceForms and Surfaces, based in Dade County, sold 12,000 square feet of Saturnia Stone to Welbro Constructors, based in Seminole County, for use in the C…
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 Common Law Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Forms and Surfaces, Inc., the defendant below (“Forms and Surfaces”), appeals a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss or to transfer for improper venue. The action is pending in Orange County.
Forms and Surfaces is a tile supplier with its principal place of business in Dade County, Florida. Welbro Constructors, Inc. (“Welbro”), the plaintiff below, is a general contractor with its principal place of business in Seminole County, Florida.
On October 1,1990, pursuant to a purchase order, Forms and Surfaces agreed to sell Welbro 12,000 square feet of Saturnia Stone for use in the Clarion Plaza Hotel in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The purchase order called for delivery of the stone F.O.B. Miami, at Forms and Surface’s own warehouse on March 1, 1991. Welbro took delivery of the stone and installed it. On October 1, 1991, Welbro notified Forms and Surfaces that “the Saturnia Stone is not performing as an acceptable floor tile or performing as represented by Forms and Surfaces” and demanded that the stone be replaced. Forms and Surfaces refused.
Welbro filed suit against Forms and Surfaces in Orange County. The stated basis for venue was that the defendant had contracted to supply materials “for incorporation into improvements to the Clarion Hotel, located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida.” The complaint sought damages for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (3) breach of the express warranty and (4) common law indemnity.1
On appeal, Welbro asserts that the trial judge properly denied the motion to transfer venue because the action for breach of contract accrued in Orange County2 where the “actual failure of the product occurred”. Forms and Surfaces maintains that venue in Orange County is not proper because the place of the breach had to be Dade County, where the allegedly defective goods were delivered.
The general rule is that a cause of action for breach of contract “accrues,” for venue purposes, where the alleged breach occurred. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A. v. McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson & Robuck, P.A., 582 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Carter Realty Co. v. Roper Bros. Land Co., 461 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Windsor v. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The breach of contract alleged in this case was that Forms and Surfaces supplied Welbro with defective or nonconforming stone. An action for such a breach accrues, for venue purposes, where the allegedly defective or nonconforming goods were deliv-©red.3 Whittington v. Laney, 566 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Stanfield v. DeStefano, 300 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Richard Bertram & Co. v. Barrett, 155 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Here the breach occurred, if at all, upon delivery of the goods to Welbro, not, as claimed by Welbro, where the defect was discovered. Accordingly, venue in Orange County is improper. The order denying the motion for change of venue is vacated and the lower court is instructed to enter an appropriate order of transfer to Dade County.4
ORDER VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . The claim for indemnity sought anticipatory damages from Forms and Surfaces for “any liability or responsibility which WELBRO has, or may have, to the Owner as a result of the defective and non-conforming materials provided by Defendant....”
. On appeal, this is the only cause of action which Welbro asserts accrued in Orange County.
. The principles relied on by Welbro — which attempt to place venue where the “actual failure of the product occurred” — apply to actions in tort, in which venue is laid where the plaintiff suffers injury. Williams v. Goldsmith, 619 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
.It is unclear whether appellee asserts a forum non conveniens argument on appeal; however, if asserted, it is rejected as legally insufficient, both procedurally and substantially.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tech. Packaging, Inc. v. Hanchett, 992 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…, 678 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1996)). The parties do not dispute that, in the underlying action, the respective breaches occurred when the defective product was delivered from UCB to Technical. See, e.g., Forms & Surfaces, Inc. v. Welbro Constructors, Inc., 627 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (“An action for such a breach accrues, for venue purposes, where the allegedly defective or nonconforming goods were delivered.”).3 [*314] From the materials from the underlying lawsuit included in our record, it is reasonab…
-
Sagaz Indus., Inc. v. Martin, 706 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…r breach of contract and that the cause of action accrues where the breach occurred. Suzanne Walker & Associates, Inc. v. Qualtec Quality Services, Inc., 660 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Forms and Surfaces, Inc. v. Welbro Constructors, Inc., 627 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Pearson v. Wallace Aviation, Inc., 400 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A breach is said to have occurred where the failure of performance occurred. Vital Industries, Inc. v. Burch, 423 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Speedl…
-
Pier Point Developers, L.L.C. v. Whitelaw, 912 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…urred. See Williams v. Goldsmith, 619 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). When the breach involves delivery of defective or nonconforming goods, venue is proper where the goods were delivered. See Forms & Surfaces, Inc. v. Welbro Constructors, Inc., 627 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In relying on A & M Engineering, the trial court apparently agreed with White-law’s argument that the insertion of the term “FOB” in the contract meant that delivery took place in Lee County. In A & M Engineering, the buye…
Authorities Cited
- Windsor v. Crescent A. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Carter Realty Co. v. Roper Bros. Land Co., Inc., 461 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Richard Bertram & Co. v. Barrett, 155 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Rambarran v. Mr. & Mrs. Physy Rahaman, 619 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Jacobs & Goodman, P.A. v. McLIN, 582 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Natural Res. v. Burton Holmes, 300 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- L.E. Whittington v. Laney, 566 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)