STARLITE DINERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GREGORY OSWALT D/B/A STARLITE DINER, 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.
Starlite Diners sought to collect sales tax from a buyer under a contract provision explicitly assigning tax responsibility to the buyer. The trial court found the contract ambiguous based on handwritten reference to "sales tax" in a separate provision, accepted the buyer's oral testimony that Starlite would pay any taxes, and ruled against Starlite. The appellate court reversed, holding that Article Five was unambiguous and enforced the plain language shifting tax responsibility to the buyer.
The contract is unambiguous; Article Five clearly and unequivocally assigns payment of sales tax to the buyer. The handwritten reference to "sales tax" in the "Other Provisions" section does not create ambiguity or conflict with Article Five. The trial court's interpretation would render the contract illegal under Florida law, which prohibits dealers from absorbing or relieving purchasers of tax liability.
[1] A contract is not rendered ambiguous by the presence of handwritten provisions that do not conflict with clear and unequivocal typed provisions.
[2] A contract provision clearly and unequivocally stating that the contract price does not include taxes and that taxes are the responsibility of the owner will be enforced…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is specifically agreed and understood between the parties that the contract price herein specified does not include any national, federal, state or local taxes, licenses, permits, tariffs or import fees, and are the responsibility of the owner [Oswalt].”
Article Five of the contract establishing clear, explicit assignment of tax responsibility to the buyer, forming the basis of Starlite's claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStarlite Diners and Gregory Oswalt executed a contract whereby Starlite agreed to construct and deliver a modular diner unit. Article Five explicitly …
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the lower court erred in ruling that a contract, entered into between Starlite Diners, Inc. (seller) and Gregory Oswalt, d/b/a Starlite Diner (buyer) was ambiguous. Oswalt and Starlite ¿executed a contract whereby Starlite agreed to act as “contractor” and furnish labor and materials to construct and deliver a modular diner unit on Oswalt’s site. Article Five of the contract, entitled “Taxes,” provided:
It is specifically agreed and understood between the parties that the contract price herein specified does not include any national, federal, state or local taxes, licenses, permits, tariffs or import fees, and are the responsibility of the owner [Oswalt].
At the time of the sale, Starlite was unsure whether the modular unit would be treated as the sale of tangible personal property (taxable by Department of Revenue) or as the sale of an improvement to real property (not subject to DOR). As a result, the sales tax was not collected by Starlite. After an audit by the Department of Revenue, which apparently was random, sales tax was assessed against Starlite for the sale of the diner unit to Oswalt (and others). Subsequently, Star-lite entered into a stipulation agreement with DOR for monthly payments of the tax liability. DOR agreed to waive any interest and penalties. Starlite was also given a reasonable time to attempt to collect the sales tax from buyers.
Starlite then filed a complaint against Oswalt claiming breach of contract citing to Article Five of the contract and alleging that Oswalt had agreed to pay any state taxes but failed to do so. Oswalt asserted an affirmative defense claiming that Star-lite orally represented to him that there was no sales tax to be paid on the sale of his prefabricated building and that Starlite would pay any sales taxes if found to be due.
The trial judge at non-jury trial found the contract to be ambiguous because of two handwritten words — “sales tax” — under a section of the printed contract entitled “Other Provisions.” The complete handwritten portion following the typed words “Other Provisions” was as follows: “Change orders/siding/vestibule/sales tax/ to be priced after plans approved by Walton County and Hwy 98 Committee.” Based upon this finding of ambiguity, the trial judge accepted the testimony of the buyer and rejected that of the seller in regard to the intent of the parties as to payment of the sales tax. It should be noted that all oral discussions between the parties as to the terms of their agreement preceded execution of the written agreement. It was conceded by the buyer that he did not delete or modify Article Five of the contract or refer to it in writing in any way.
We disagree with the trial judge. The language in the “Other Provisions” section of the contract is clear and its presence in the contract creates no conflict with Article Five. Article Five of the contract clearly and unequivocally provides for payment of the sales tax by the buyer. Moreover, the trial court’s interpretation of the contract rendered it illegal under the provisions of section 212.07(4), Florida Statutes (2001), which provides:
A dealer engaged in any business taxable under this chapter may not advertise or hold out to the public, in any manner, directly or indirectly, that he or she will absorb all or any part of the tax, or that he or she will relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the tax, or that the tax will not be added to the selling price of the property or services sold or released or, when added, that it or any part thereof will be refunded either directly or indirectly by any method whatsoever. A person who violates this provision with respect to advertising or refund is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in section 775.082 or section 775.083. A second or subsequent offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in section 775.082 or section 775.083.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the plaintiff below, Starlite Diners, Inc. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., and STRICKLAND, S.W., Associate Judge, concur.