JOHN WEIGERT, APPELLANT,
v.
TRADE WIND VENTURES, INC., AND GARY BRAVERMAN, APPELLEES
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.
John Weigert appeals from a judgment denying his breach of contract claim for the sale of a vessel. The court reverses, finding clear and unambiguous breach by Trade Wind Ventures and its principal Gary Braverman, and awards Weigert damages for the benefit of his bargain plus return of his deposit.
The seller breached the contract and the guarantor breached his guarantee. The buyer is entitled to $20,000 against both the seller and guarantor for the deposit refund, plus an additional $30,000 against the seller for the difference between the market value ($215,000) and the contract price ($165,000), less the $20,000 joint liability. Attorney's fees are awarded against the seller only, not the guarantor.
[1] A seller who breaches a contract to sell a vessel is liable to the buyer for the benefit of the bargain, measured by the market value of the vessel at the time of the bre…
[2] A guarantor of a deposit refund is jointly and severally liable with the principal obligor for the amount of the deposit.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 contract terms are clear and unambiguous and the evidence is undisputed that seller breached its contract to sell the vessel and Mr. Braverman breached his guarantee.”
Establishes that both the seller and guarantor breached their contractual obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1986, Weigert entered into a contract to purchase a sports/fishing vessel from Trade Wind Ventures for $165,000, with closing by January 1991. Weig…
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 Guarantee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellees’ motion for rehearing and clarification, we grant the motion in part, withdraw our opinion filed December 13,1995, and substitute the following opinion.
Buyer, John Weigert, appeals from a final judgment after a non-jury trial denying his claim for breach of contract for sale of a vessel. For the following reasons, we reverse.
In 1986, buyer entered into a contract with seller, Trade Wind Ventures, Inc., by which seller agreed to sell a sports/fishing vessel to buyer for $165,000, with closing to occur by January 1991. The contract also recited receipt by seller from buyer of $20,000 in “cash and other considerations, including services rendered for the restoration of the VESSEL.” The contract further provided for the return of $20,000 in cash to buyer upon default of the seller. The $20,000 refund was personally guaranteed by seller’s principal, Gary Braverman. There is no dispute that buyer provided services and cash towards the restoration of the vessel.
Nonetheless, in December 1987, seller sold the vessel to a third party for the substantially higher price of $215,000 and did not return buyer’s deposit. The contract terms are clear and unambiguous and the evidence is undisputed that seller breached its contract to sell the vessel and Mr. Braverman breached his guarantee. As damages on the breach of the sales contract, buyer is entitled to the benefit of his bargain, measured by the market value of the vessel at the time of the breach. See Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The only evidence at trial on market value appears to be buyer’s evidence that the vessel was sold to a third party for 1215,0001; seller did not present any evidence. Buyer is entitled to judgment for damages in principal of (1) $20,000 against both seller and Mr. Braverman on the deposit refund; and (2) an additional $30,000 against seller separately — the $50,000 difference between the market price and the contract purchase price less the $20,000 joint liability of the seller and Mr. Braverman for return of the deposit.
Upon further consideration, we also withdraw our December 13,1995, order awarding attorney’s fees against both seller and guarantor and instead order that appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is granted as to seller, Trade Wind Ventures, only, the amount to be fixed by the trial court. See MSI Financial Group, Inc. v. Veterans Constr. Corp., 645 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (guarantor not subject to attorney’s fees provision contained in underlying contract but not in guarantee agreement).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for buyer in accordance ' with this opinion.
. This amount includes a brokerage commission that the seller did not receive. However, seller did not rebut buyer’s testimony that buyer was a licensed yacht broker and, thus, would have kept the commission had he had the opportunity to resell the vessel himself.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weigert v. Trade Wind Ventures, Inc., 685 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. This appeal and cross-appeal seek to enforce our mandate issued in a previous appearance of this case, Weigert v. Trade Wind Ventures, Inc. and Braverman, 667 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). (Weigert I). In Weigert I, this court found: In 1986, buyer entered into a contract with seller, Trade Wind Ventures, Inc., by which seller agreed to sell a sports/fishing vessel to buyer for $165,000, with closing to occur by…
-
HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867 (11th Cir. 2005)…of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages ..., but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.” Fla. Stat. § 672.713(1); U.C.C. § 2-713(1); accord Weigert v. Trade Wind Ventures, Inc., 667 So. 2d 913, 914 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (per curiam); Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917, 918 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988); see also Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173, 175 (1921). In this case, however, the district court found that HGI failed to plead suf…
Authorities Cited
- Kneale v. JAY BEN Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- MSI Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Veterans Constr. Corp., 645 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)