AYCO FARMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD HAROLD PEELER, SCOTT TAYLOR, AND RONNIE CARTER, APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS
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.
Ayco Farms appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a watermelon supply dispute, arguing the trial court erred in finding waiver of arbitration rights. The appellate court reversed, holding that filing a motion for temporary injunction—an express exception to arbitration contained in the contract itself—does not waive the right to arbitration.
A party does not waive its right to arbitration by exercising an express injunction exception to arbitration contained in the contract. The trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
[1] A party does not waive its right to arbitration by seeking injunctive relief to enforce an agreement when the agreement expressly permits such action.
[2] A trial court errs as a matter of law by denying a motion to compel arbitration when the parties' contract includes an express exception for seeking injunctive relief.
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“Exercise of an express injunction exception to arbitration does not waive the party's right to arbitration.”
Establishes the core legal principle that using a contractual exception to seek injunctive relief does not waive arbitration rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAyco Farms and Richard Peeler had an Exclusive Sales Agreement requiring Peeler to grow, harvest, and pack watermelons for Ayco to pick up and transpo…
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 Preservation Of Status Quo cases and more on FLexlaw
Ayco Farms, Inc., appeals the lower court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration, and petitions for a writ of cer-tiorari to quash the lower court’s order granting the motion to compel discovery filed by Richard Peeler, Scott Taylor, and Ronnie Carter. We reverse and remand the appeal for the reason stated below, and deny the petition for writ of certiorari without comment.
The trial court erred as a matter of law by denying appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, because the court incorrectly found that appellant had waived its right to arbitrate by filing a motion for temporary injunction to enforce the parties’ Exclusive Sales Agreement. The following provision in the contract states that disputes between the parties must be submitted to arbitration except that Ayco may seek to enforce the agreement by injunction.
Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration according to the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and not under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act' in Broward County, Florida. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Distributor may choose to bring suit in a state or federal court to obtain injunctive relief to enforce this Agreement.
Exercise of an express injunction exception to arbitration does not waive the party’s right to arbitration. See Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); EMSA Ltd. Ptnshp. v. Mason, 677 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
*979It was undisputed that the parties had contracted for appellant to buy all of ap-pellee Peeler’s watermelons; that appellee would grow, harvest, and pack them; and that appellant would pick them up and transport them. The trial court’s injunction required this procedure to go forward to keep any potential damage as low as possible in light of the short time remaining for harvest. The court did not decide that a breach had occurred, which party was at fault, what percentage each party was at fault, or any damages owed by either party for melons sold to third parties or melons left to rot in the field. The injunction preserved the status quo and did not change the status of either party. See Bowling v. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634, 135 So. 541 (1931).
APPEAL REVERSED and REMANDED, PETITION DENIED.
PADOVANO, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bowling v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1931)
- Emsa Ltd. P'ship v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & ALE OF Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)