DENNIES CONTRACTING CO., INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
BURTON H. HERSH, 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.
Affirmed jury verdict for architect's claim of oral agreement with roofing contractor to pay referral fee, despite appellate skepticism about the amount.
An oral agreement between an architect and roofing contractor to pay a referral fee is enforceable when supported by evidence the jury may accept, even if the amount seems unreasonably high.
[1] An oral agreement to pay a referral fee is enforceable when the jury finds credible evidence of the agreement, even if the amount appears disproportionate to the service…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“we are skeptical as to the accuracy of a finding that a roofer agreed to pay over $138,000.00 merely for suggesting its availability in the post-Andrew era when roofers were almost impossible to come by at any price”
The court expressed doubt about the reasonableness of the verdict amount despite affirming it.
Hersh, an architect, claimed Dennies Contracting orally agreed to pay him approximately 4% of a contract price if he referred the company to another a…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, C.J.
The appellee Hersh is an architect, who sued the appellant, a roofing contractor, on a claim it had orally agreed that if Hersh recommended it to another architect who was in charge of a large project for the repair of hurricane damage and it eventually got the job, the company would pay Hersh a fee of what was subsequently agreed to be approximately 4% of the contract price. The jury returned a verdict of $138,108.00 for Hersh, and after its post trial motions were denied, the company now appeals from the resulting judgment.
It is clear that the plaintiffs claim is supported by the law, see Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Business Brokers, Inc., 562 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and a view of the evidence, primarily Hersh’s own sworn testimony the jury had a right to accept. We confess that we are skeptical as to the accuracy of a finding that a roofer agreed to pay over $138,000.00 merely for suggesting its availability in the post-Andrew era when roofers were almost impossible to come by at any price.
Nevertheless, because we cannot in good conscience find that the result is so obviously contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the “justice of the cause” as to fall within that narrow class of cases in which an appellate court may grant a new trial notwithstanding the existence of evidence which justifies the verdict, see Branam v. Aqua-Clear Pools, Inc., 672 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), we are bound to affirm. See Espino v. Anez, 665 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reya Raheb and Parvin Pahlevanian Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Cary Kogen, 665 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Espino v. Oswaldo Anez, 665 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Branam v. Aqua-Clear Pools, Inc., 672 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Bus. Brokers, Inc., 562 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)