PETER L. WINTER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNION AIR TRANSPORT GMBH, A FOREIGN 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.
A shipper cannot seek damages from a carrier for consequences of improperly labeled cargo when the shipper provided the inaccurate information and was alerted to potential penalties.
Plaintiff Winter executed a shipper's letter of instructions form with defendant Union Air Transport, which alerted him to penalties for false stateme…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Peter L. Winter, appeals a final summary judgment in defendant Union Air Transport’s favor. We affirm.
The shipper’s letter of instructions form, which Winter executed, clearly alerted Winter to possible civil and criminal penalties resulting from false or fraudulent statements regarding the contents of cargo or freight. Winter, not Union Air, was in the best position to determine the correct contents of the cargo. Winter provided the invoice reflecting the cargo’s content; Winter may not seek damages from Union Air for the consequences of improperly labeled cargo, and for Union Air’s resulting failure to secure appropriate export permits. He will not be heard to say he was harmed by Union Air’s failure to render correct advice as to the need for permits and licenses when Winter misrepresented the facts. See Davanzo v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 301 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1975). The letter of instructions form placed the burden on Winter to reveal the contents of the cargo. Winter’s failure to read the letter of instructions form prior to signing it is not a defense against its application. Alejano v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1977).
The trial court correctly found that Union Air was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985). The final summary judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viviana Santana v. Miller, 314 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…berty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). It is well-established the failure to review and read a contract prior to its execution is not a defense against its application. Winter v. Union Air Transp. GMBH, 650 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (Appellant’s “failure to read the [contract] . . . prior to signing it is not a defense against its application.”) (citations omitted); see also Rivero v. Rivero, 963 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“The rule that one who…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)
- Alejano v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Vito Davanzo v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 301 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Chivers v. Argyros, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1975)
- Vito Davanzo v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1975)