FRED F. DORNER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint for breach of a fertilizer supply agreement. The court held that while some damages claims were too speculative, the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for breach where the defendant agreed to furnish fertilizer for specific vegetable crops and refused to do so.
The demurrer should have been overruled because the declaration states a cause of action for breach of the fertilizer supply agreement. While special damages claims regarding failure to produce a contemplated crop may be too remote and speculative to be recoverable, the core allegations of breach and proximately caused damages that are capable of reasonably certain ascertainment are sufficient to state a claim.
“Such damages or losses as are in effect stated in the declaration to have proximately resulted from the breach of the agreement and are capable of reasonably certain ascertainment, may be recovered”
Establishes the standard for recoverable damages in breach of contract cases—those proximately resulting from breach and capable of reasonably certain ascertainment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorner had arranged with Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company to furnish fertilizer for growing vegetable crops. Dorner prepared fifty acres of land and…
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 Special Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the defendant on a demurrer sustained to a second amended declaration setting up the breach of an agreement to furnish fertilizers to be used in growing vegetable crops. Errors are assigned on sustaining demurrers to each count of 'the amended and the second amended declarations.
While the special damages claimed in the declarations as to the failure to make a stated portion of a contemplated crop not alleged to have been planted, may be too remote and speculative to be recoverable under the law, yet it is in substance alleged that pursuant to an arrangement by the plaintiff with the defendant for furnishing fertilizer by the defendant to be used in growing specified vegetable crops, that plaintiff “had procured and prepared a large acreage to-wit, fifty acres of land, for planting his said crops of celery and lettuce; that he had his crops planted with sufficient plants for fifty acres of celery and lettuce; that it then became and was necessary for plaintiff to procure a quantity of fertilizer sufficient to cultivate said fifty acres of land in said crops of celery and lettuce to mature the same ’ ’ and it is in effect alleged that defendant refused to furnish fertilizers as agreed well knowing at the time of the agreement that they would be necssary in growing the crops, etc. Such damages or losses as are in effect stated in the declaration to have proximately resulted from the breach of the agreement and are capable of reasonably certain ascertainment, may be recovered, therefore the demurrer should have been overruled since the declaration otherwise states a cause of action. Improper claims for damages may be eliminated by motion .under the statute, or such improper claims may be rendered innocuous by rejecting evidence as to them, or by appropriate charges respecting them. See Hildreth v. Western Union Tel. Co., 56 Fla. 387, 47 South. Rep. 820; Hall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 59 Fla. 275, 51 South. Rep. 819, Tedder v. Riggin, 65 Fla. 153, 61 South. Rep. 244; Harris v. Cocoanut Grove Development Co., 63 Fla. 175, 59 South. Rep. 11; Cline v. Tampa Water Works Co., 46 Fla. 459, 35 South. Rep. 8; Borden v. Western Union Tel. Co., 32 Fla. 394, 13 South Rep. 876.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hildreth v. W. Union Tel. Co., 56 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1908)
- Tedder v. Riggin, 65 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1913)
- Hall v. W. Union Tel. Co., 59 Fla. 275 (Fla. 1910)
- N. B. Borden & Co. v. The W. Union Tel. Co., 32 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1893)
- Cline v. Tampa Water Works Co., 46 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1903)
- Harris v. Cocoanut Grove Dev. Co., 63 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1912)