ARNOLD ALTEX ALUMINUM COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SIRE PLAN, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Arnold Altex Aluminum Company appeals a judgment for breach of contract to manufacture and install windows and doors. The trial court found that Comas Corporation was an undisclosed principal on whose behalf Escot Construction Corp. contracted with the defendant, creating a direct contractual relationship. The appellate court affirmed the judgment.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings. The court rejected defendant's argument that a subcontractor clause prevented the owner from suing the subcontractor, finding that the undisclosed principal doctrine created a direct contract between Comas and the defendant. The court also upheld the trial court's finding that the written assignment was effective.
“The trial judge was the trier of the facts, and his finding on this pivotal point of the case was not shown to be wholly wrong or against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings: appellate courts will not overturn trial court findings unless shown to be wholly wrong or against manifest weight of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEscot Construction Corp. entered into a contract with Arnold Altex Aluminum Co. for manufacture and installation of windows and doors in an apartment …
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 Undisclosed Principal cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals a judgment entered on a trial without a jury, in an action for damages for alleged breach of a contract for manufacture and installation of windows and doors in an apartment building. The trial court held there was a breach of contract, assessed the damages and entered judgment.
The complaint alleged, and the trial judge so found, that Comas Corporation was an undisclosed principal, on whose behalf Es-cot Construction Corp. made the contract *80with the defendant Arnold Altex Aluminum Co.1
As its first point appellant argues that because the contract provided that a subcontractor was not entitled to look to the owner, “the owner in turn may not look to the subcontractor.” We must reject that contention as not being applicable to this case. That argument assumes that Escot Construction Corp. was the contractor and that defendant was a subcontractor. As pointed out above, it was alleged that the Comas Corporation was an undisclosed principal for whom Escot made the contract with the defendant. Appellant’s theory of the facts would require not only that we disregard that allegation but that we reject the finding of the trial judge, quoted above, where he held that the relationship as alleged in the complaint was established by the evidence, resulting in a direct contract between Comas and the defendant. Appellant makes no showing to warrant such action by us. The trial judge was the trier of the facts, and his finding on this pivotal point of the case was not shown to be wholly wrong or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In a second point appellant challenges the assignment under which the plaintiff maintained the action as assignee of the claim of Comas against the defendant. The assignment was in writing. The trial judge held the assignment effective for the purpose and we agree.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lighting Fixture & Elec. Supply Co. Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 420 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969)…lectric Supply. This contention is also unsound. In Florida an undisclosed principal may sue upon a contract made by its agent. E. O. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. Dupont, 56 Fla. 511, 47 So. 928 (1908); Arnold Altex Aluminum Company v. Sire Plan, Inc., 149 So. 2d 79 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963). See generally 1 FlaJur. Agency § 92 (1955). The Florida courts have not had occasion to formulate any exceptions to this rule which are relevant to this case. We believe that a Florida court would adhere to the rule obtaining…