MIAMI LAUNDRY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MIAMI LAUNDRY LINEN SUPPLY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, W. BRUCE MACINTOSH, NORMAN H. HOUSEKNECHT, M. D. CAUTHEN, GEORGE E. MORGAN, GRALYNN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GENERAL LAUNDRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SANITARY LINEN SERVICE CO., 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.
This case involves a plaintiff seeking an injunction and damages against defendant corporations for allegedly inducing customers to breach their laundry and linen supply contracts. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficient.
Yes, the complaint is sufficient. The law provides relief against parties who induce breaches of contract, and the specific issues of competitive privilege and the means used are matters for defense, not for dismissal at this stage.
“The law affords relief against one inducing breach by a contracting party.”
Establishes the legal principle the court relied upon.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff alleged that the defendant corporations, through their officers and agents, induced and would continue to induce customers to breach the…
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 Inducing Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Alleging that defendant corporations through their officers and agents have induced and unless enjoined will continue to induce their customers to breach contracts for laundry and linen supply services, plaintiff sought an injunction and damages. No specific contracts were shown, only blank forms. Names of customers alleged to have made contracts were included by amendment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied, and they have appealed. The sole question is the sufficiency of the complaint. The law affords relief against one inducing breach by a contracting party. Dade Enterprises v. Wometco Theatres, 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726; Harvey Corporation v. Universal Equipment Co., 158 Fla. 644, 29 So.2d 700, 704; Regan v. Davis, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 324, 327-28; Steffan v. Zernes, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 495, 498; IV Restatement, Torts, § 766. The questions, important to this case which involves the highly competitive laundry business, of whether defendants were privileged as competitors to solicit plaintiff’s (contract) customers and whether non-tortious means were used, are matters to be raised and tested on defense, and therefore not now before us for consideration.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durable Unif. & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv. Co., 183 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…legations as to factual matters constituting the interference alleged. However, under the authorities, it appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 519; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 464; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 42, p. 84. Elementary in determining the propriety of a temporary injunction is the necessity for the appellant to…
-
United Coin Meter Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. Commercial Laundries, Inc., 408 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…on Hot Line, Inc. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 385 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Paul’s Drugs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 175 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Miami Laundry Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., 131 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1961). We reverse, however, as to paragraph 1(f) which is overly broad and constitutes a judicially ordered compulsory cross-claim contrary to the language of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(g).…
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv., 133 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1961)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 131 So. 2d 519.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Enters., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1935)
- Duval Laundry Co., Inc. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1937)
- Regan v. Davis, 97 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Harvey Corp. v. Universal Equip. Co., 158 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1947)
- Steffan v. Zernes, 124 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)