L. C. PITTMAN, F. MALCOLM CUNNINGHAM AND D. A. CHAIKIN, D/B/A ACRE-HOME DEVELOPERS, APPELLANTS.
v.
BERTHA ROBERTS, 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.
Contractors appealed a jury verdict awarding $6,437.50 for breach of a building contract. The court affirmed, holding that evidence was sufficient to establish the defendants as undisclosed principals bound by their agent's contract for defective home construction.
The court held that sufficient evidence was presented to establish the agency relationship binding the defendants as undisclosed principals to the contract, and that evidence adequately supported the jury's determination of damages. An undisclosed principal is liable for contracts entered into by an agent acting in the agent's own name.
“Generally, the contract of an agent dealing in his own name without disclosing the identity of his principal is the contract of the principal. This rule as to liability of an undisclosed principal applies to a simple executory contract or one not fully performed.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that undisclosed principals are bound by contracts their agents execute in their own names.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.C. Pittman entered into a contract with Bertha Roberts to build a house. Pittman was acting as agent for Acre-Home Developers, a partnership consist…
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 Admissibility Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Protesting the result of a jury verdict for a breach of a building contract returned in the court below for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,437.50, the defendants have instituted this appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict.
Issues tried were created under an amended complaint and the answer thereto. The complaint charged that L. C. Pittman, F. Malcolm Cunningham, and D. A. Chaikin, doing business as Acre-Home Developers, agreed as undisclosed principals to build a house for the plaintiff by a contract entered into by Pittman as their agent; that under the contract the defendants agreed to erect, finish, and deliver the house in true artisan and workmanlike manner and to build it in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings made for the plaintiff; that the defendants in violation of the contract failed to do this but that there were, - instead, substantial deviations from the plans, together with defective construction and unskilled workmanship.
Although the defendants admitted that they were a partnership doing business as Acre-Home Developers, they denied that the contract was entered into on their behalf as undisclosed principals by L. C. Pittman acting as their agent, and they further denied any liability.
The agreement, a simple contract for the construction of a private home, was executed by L. C. Pittman and Bertha Roberts in their own names. Generally, the contract of an agent dealing in his own name without disclosing the identity of his principal is the contract of the principal. This rule as to liability of an undisclosed principal applies to a simple executory contract or one not fully performed. Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 1931, 103 Fla. 848, 138 So. 369; and Humphrey v. Bussey, 1930, 99 Fla. 1249, 128 So. 841.
For an undisclosed principal to be held for the acts of his alleged agent, the relation of principal and agent must be proved. This may be accomplished through circumstantial as well as through direct evidence. Parol evidence is admissible to identify a principal as the real party in interest in a transaction. Love v. Brown Development Co., 1930, 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144; and 1 Fla.Jur., Agency, section 90, pp. 699-700.
The defendants urge that the evidence was insufficient to establish agency so as to bind them as undisclosed principals. Our view upon examination of the record sustains the ruling of the trial judge that the evidence introduced did provide an adequate basis upon which the issue could be submitted to the jury for determination.
It is further contended by the defendants that there was no evidence introduced tp afford a sufficient basis upon which damages could be awarded. We answer this also by saying that the evidence on this phase warranted a jury consideration and determination.
Declining to allow the plaintiff her request for taxing of court costs against the defendants in the sum of $634.55, the court allowed only $53.33 as costs. Cross-assignments of error were filed by the plaintiff for failure of the trial court to have allowed the amount sought. Our perusal of plaintiff’s brief reveals that such assignments of error are not presented as a point nor argued. Under Rule 3.7, subd. i, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., where assignments of error are not argued in the briefs they will be deemed abandoned. The appellate court in the interest of justice may take notice of jurisdictional or fundamental error apparent in the record on appeal, whether or not it has been argued in the briefs or made *335the subject of an assignment of error, objection, or exception in the court below. However, the record discloses nothing to bring the matter cross-assigned within the exception to the rule. We therefore consider the cross-assignments of error as having been abandoned.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…reviewed. Rule 6.16(a) F.A.R. See Custer v. State, 159 Fla. 574, 34 So. 2d 100, 112; Barnes v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 157; Florio v. State ex rel. Epperson, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So. 2d 305, 309, 80 A.L.R.2d 1117; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 333; 2 Fla.Jur. Appeal & Error, § 87. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence, aside from the testimony complained of, was sufficient to have supported a conviction, we are of the opinion that the administration of justice would best be served in th…
-
Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…vidence. Of course, the principle which allows a court to receive parol evidence has long been recognized in determining the relationship of an undisclosed principal with his agent. See, 1 Fla.Jur., Agency, § 90; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.2d 1960, 122 So. 2d 333. And more recently, in Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, Fla.App.2d 1968, 208 So. 2d 492, this court indicated that parol evidence is admissible to determine the real parties in interest in a transaction. In Holder, there was a conflict between th…
-
Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, 208 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ual purchasers would have been admissible, as parol evidence is admissible to identify the real parties in interest in a transaction. See Love v. Brown Dev. Co. of Mich., 1930, 100 Fla. 1373, 1379, 131 So. 144, 146; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 333, 334. The affidavit filed by appellant, therefore, was legally sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and, thus, to defeat appellees’ motion for summary judgment. The summary final judgment appealed here is reversed, and the cause is…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 103 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1931)
- Love v. Brown Dev. Co. of Mich., 100 Fla. 1373 (Fla. 1930)
- Stewart v. Martin, 99 Fla. 1249 (Fla. 1930)