KENNETH C. JENNE, II, AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BROWARD SERVICE CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The Sheriff of Broward County appealed a judgment requiring him to pay damages for breach of contract to Broward Service Center, arguing that a minimum labor hour provision was void as against public policy. The court affirmed, holding that the provision served a legitimate public purpose by enabling the service center to meet its costs while exclusively serving the sheriff's vehicle maintenance needs.
The minimum labor hour provision is not void as against public policy. The provision legitimately compensated the service center for opportunity costs and waiting time while exclusively serving the sheriff's needs, and the paramount public purpose of privatization to reduce costs and improve efficiency outweighs any incidental private benefit to the service center.
[1] A contract provision guaranteeing a minimum number of labor hours, even if it results in payment for unperformed work, may be valid if its purpose is to compensate a serv…
[2] The incidental benefit to a private entity does not invalidate a contract if the paramount purpose of the agreement serves the public interest.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 purpose of the provision was to compensate the service center for the time its technicians spent waiting for work, so that the service center would be able to meet its costs”
Establishes the legitimate purpose of the minimum labor hour provision as compensating for opportunity costs rather than payment for non-existent work
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, a former sheriff contracted with Broward Service Center to perform repairs and maintenance on the sheriff's fleet of vehicles, with the goal …
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 Opportunity Cost cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Sheriff of Broward County (“sheriff’) appeals a final judgment of damages for breach of contract in favor of the Broward Service Center (“service center”). The sheriff argues that a minimum labor hour provision in the contract is void as against public policy. We affirm.
In 1991, a former sheriff contracted with the service center to perform repairs and maintenance on the sheriffs fleet of police cars, trucks, and vans. The purpose behind privatizing the sheriffs service center was to reduce costs and improve efficiency and quality of vehicle maintenance. In 1994, another former sheriff terminated the contract without explanation and refused to pay $186,-237.32 owed under a minimum labor hour provision. This contract provision guaranteed that the sheriff would pay the service center a minimum of 300 hours of labor a week regardless of the actual number of hours worked.
The sheriff contends that the minimum labor hour provision served a purely private interest because it compensated a private entity with public funds for work that was never actually performed. He argues that the contract therefore contravenes the public interest. However, it is clear that the purpose of the provision was to compensate the service center for the time its technicians spent waiting for work, so that the service center would be able to meet its costs. In other words, the provision compensated the service center for the opportunity cost of exclusively serving the repair and maintenance needs of the sheriff. Moreover, although the provision may have provided an incidental benefit to the service center, the paramount purpose of privatization was to serve the public interest. See generally Poe v. Hillsborough County, 695 So. 2d 672, 677 (Fla. 1997) (“An incidental use or benefit which may be of some private benefit is not the proper test in determining whether or not the project is for a public purpose.”) (quoting State v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 89 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1956)).
We also affirm as to the sheriffs assertion that the trial court was required to determine as a matter of law that the service center made fraudulent misrepresentations. Whether a party has made fraudulent misrepresentations is a question for the jury. See Casey v. Welch, 50 So. 2d 124, 124-25 (Fla.1951). As to all other issues raised, we also affirm.
STONE, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gerhardt M. Witt v. LA Gorce Country Club, Inc., 35 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…esentation. Biscayne Invs. Group, 903 So. 2d 251. Whether a party has made intentional fraudulent misrepresentations is a question of fact. See D & M Jupiter, Inc. v. Friedopfer, 853 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Jenne v. Broward Serv. Ctr., Inc., 717 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Once La Gorce presented evidence as to the elements of fraud in the inducement, it was within the fact finder’s province to determine whether fraud existed. See Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306, 308 (F…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 89 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1956)
- Casey v. Welch, 50 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1951)
- POE v. Hillsborough Cnty., 695 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1997)