GLOBAL AERO SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LLOYD AEREO BOLIVIANO, S.A. ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Global Aero Service appeals a judgment finding it breached a contract to sell and deliver airplane parts to Lloyd Aereo Boliviano by a specified date. The trial court awarded Lloyd $5,530.58 in damages and voided promissory notes, while denying Global's cross-claim for losses and profits. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment.
The trial court's judgment was affirmed. The evidence supported the finding that Global breached the contract by failing to ship merchandise on or before May 15, 1962, thereby terminating the contract and entitling Lloyd to recover $5,530.58 in damages. Global was not entitled to recover alleged losses and profits caused by the termination of the agreement.
“It is a well established rule of law that every judgment, order or decree of a trial court brought up for review is clothed with a presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant in all such proceedings to make error clearly appear.”
Establishes the standard of review on appeal: the trial court's judgment is presumed correct and the appellant must demonstrate reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlobal and Lloyd entered into a contract whereby Global agreed to sell airplane parts to Lloyd and deliver them to Ripsa Airline at Miami, Florida for…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Global Aero Service, Inc, (hereinafter Global) was the defendant in a suit brought by the appellee, Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S.A., et al, (hereinafter Lloyd) wherein Lloyd sought an accounting, injunction, damages and other relief.
Lloyd alleged in its complaint that Global had breached a contract which the parties had entered into whereby Global had agreed to sell certain airplane parts to Lloyd and deliver them to Ripsa Airline at Miami, Florida for shipment to South America be*709fore certain dates. It is alleged that Global failed to make delivery within the time and in the manner provided for in the contract.
Global filed an answer denying the breach and a cross claim for the full amount due under the contract. Upon final hearing, the chancellor entered a final judgment in favor of Lloyd, the pertinent parts of which are:
“3. That there is now due and owing the Plaintiff from the Defendant under their agreements the sum of $5,530.58.
“4. The Defendant failed to ship the merchandise on or before May 15, 1962, thus terminating the contract.
“5. The Defendant is not entitled to recover alleged losses and profits caused by the termination of the agreement between the parties.
“WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
“(1) That the Plaintiff is granted a judgment in the sum of five thousand, five hundred thirty dollars and fifty-eight cents ($5,530.58), which said judgment is hereby entered against the Defendant, GLOBAL AERO SERVICE, INC.
“(2) That the outstanding promissory notes given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are hereby declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever, and the Defendant is ordered forthwith to deliver all the notes to the attorney for the Plaintiff.
“(3) That the Defendant recover nothing from the Plaintiff on the Cross-Claim.”
Global contends in effect that the evidence fails to support the chancellor’s holding that it had breached the terms of the contract so as to entitle Lloyd to recover.
It is a well established rule of law that every judgment, order or decree of a trial court brought up for review is clothed with a presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant in all such proceedings to make error clearly appear. Odom v. Barrett, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 200.
We have carefully reviewed all the evidence in the light of appellant’s assignments of error and point on appeal. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed should be and' hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Nat'l Bank v. Fink, 174 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, as the final judgment arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Holland v. Hall, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 552; Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S. A., Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 708. Examining the record on appeal in the instant case in light of the above principles, it appears that several months prior to the execution of the note and guaranty in question a similar loan [supported by a guaranty of the appellee] was considered…
-
Sullivan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Inc., 230 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…orrectness has not been overcome and no reversible error disclosed. Dade County, etc. v. Peppers, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 198; Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 499; Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aero Boliviano, S.A., Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 708; Taylor v. Twin City Transit Co., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 543. Affirmed. WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
-
In re Est. of George Schor v. Schor, 172 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ed by him upon the testator. The order of the probate court having arrived here with a presumption of correctness [see: State v. Town of Sweetwater, Fla.1959, 112 So. 2d 852; Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S. A., Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 708], if it can be supported on any theory it should be affirmed. See: Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So. 2d 222; Crudele v. Cook, Fla.App.1963, 165 So. 2d 424. It is apparent, measuring the record on this appeal, that there was sufficient evidenc…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odom v. Barrett et ux., 67 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1953)