SUN POWER DIESEL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, BRAD J. DAVIS AND JAY J. DAVIS, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL-ALLISON, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 appellant was entitled to prejudgment interest on damages awarded for rejected goods, but affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the appellee.
Appellant and appellee sued each other for breach of contract. The appellant recovered for rejected parts, and the appellee recovered for engine block…
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 Prejudgment Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/dealer and appellee/distributor each sued the other for breach of contract. The former recovered $21,938.10 on its claim for parts returned to, but rejected by, appel-lee. The latter recovered on its claim for the balance owed on two engine 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 stated in appellee’s summary of returned parts. Because appellee made payment on the acceptable goods on August 31, 1990, it can be readily concluded that payment for the rejected goods from that same summary sheet would have been made at that same time if those goods had been deemed acceptable.
Accordingly, August 31, 1990, is the date upon which the debt became due to appellant as it then sustained damages for the wrongly rejected goods. It was entitled to prejudgment interest from that date, and we remand for the award of same.
The trial court’s award of attorney’s fee to appellee on its claim is affirmed. See Vanuchi v. Miami Purveyors, Inc., 541 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
The cross-appeal is affirmed, cross-appellant having waived argument thereon for lack of a transcript.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Casino Cruises, Inc. v. Monte Carlo Cruise Concessions, Inc., 760 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ted). While no “magic words” are required, the trial court’s order must contain “a finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard.” Tubero, 569 So. 2d at 1273; see Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The appealed order fails to state any reasons for striking the pleadings, let alone a finding of willfulness. On remand, the trial court may, if it deems necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose o…
-
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…n contempt). Unlike the imposition of a fine, which requires a contempt finding, the striking of pleadings need only be based on willful noncompliance, as was present here. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983); Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is denied. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED. STONE, C.J., and POLEN and GROSS,. JJ., concur.…
-
Mullins v. Waymon Moneyham, 861 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…necessary, conduct an evi-dentiary hearing for the limited purpose of having appellants present evidence of any mitigating or extenuating circumstances demonstrating that their noncompliance was not deliberate or willful. See Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). If the trial court determines the sanctions were justified and makes the express findings required by Tubero, it is authorized to reinstate the order striking appellants’ pleadings and the final judgment. Id. REVERSED a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 653 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1995)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 638 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Nat'l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. v. Ira Kirkland, 678 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Pinckney v. State, 541 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- ACR Elecs., Inc. v. Switlik Parachute Co., Inc., 624 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)