GULF AMERICAN LAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY WAIN, 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.
Gulf American Land Corporation appealed a jury verdict finding it breached a real estate sales employment contract by failing to furnish information necessary for the employee to perform his duties. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the factual question of whether the employer's conduct constituted an implied breach of the contract.
The court affirmed, holding that the trial judge properly determined as a matter of law that the alleged failures to furnish information could constitute a breach of contract based on the implied covenant that neither party will hinder or obstruct the other's performance, and properly submitted the factual question of whether such breaches actually occurred to the jury.
“What will constitute a breach of contract is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Whether or not that has occurred which would constitute a breach of contract is a matter of fact to be determined by a jury.”
Establishes the division between legal standards for breach (court's role) and factual determination of whether breach occurred (jury's role)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf American Land Corporation employed Harry Wain as a real estate salesman for one year, during which Wain was prohibited from selling Florida real …
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment based upon an adverse jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of a written contract.1
The appellant’s answer to the complaint admitted the termination of the contract pri- or to the one-year period provided, but denied that anything was due appellee under the contract. Upon the conclusion of the appellee’s case in chief, and again when all the testimony and evidence had been produced, the appellant moved for directed verdicts, both of which were denied. The cause then went to the jury resulting in a verdict for the appellee. The appellant then filed a motion for a judgment non ob-stante veredicto. This motion was denied and the judgment appealed was entered.
Although the appellant has made six assignments of error, we are of the view that *764only two of these assignments have been preserved for appellate review. They are that the trial judge erred (1) in denying the appellant’s motions for directed verdict, and (2) in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. We affirm.
In substance the appellant argues that since the contract does not reveal a duty on its part to do the things which the appel-lee contends appellant failed, neglected or refused to do, that the court should have concluded as a matter of law that there had been no breach of the contract and therefore should have entered judgment for the appellant. The appellant cites the well recognized rule from Winter Garden Citrus Growers Association v. Willits, 113 Fla. 131, 151 So. 509, that “[w]hat will constitute a breach of contract is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Whether or not that has occurred which would constitute a breach of contract is a matter of fact to be determined by a jury.”
The main thrust of the appellee’s complaint was that appellant had failed, neglected and refused to furnish him information which would permit him to discharge his duties under the contract. The appellant does, in our view, come within the rule that when a person contracts for the doing of a certain thing with another, he impliedly promises that he will not himself do anything to hinder or obstruct the performance by the other person. When one of the contracting parties prevents or hinders the performance or the acts of the other contracting party required to be performed, or prevents the discharge of a contractual duty, then such actions are generally considered to be a breach of the contract, although not specified and delineated in the written instrument. See 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, § 155.
In summary, the trial judge was correct in determining that the matters and things of which the appellee complained were such that if proven would constitute a breach of the contract sued upon. This, was a conclusion of law and he was then entitled, if not required, to submit to the jury the question of whether or not the matters and things of which the appellee complained had actually occurred. See Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 20, 22; Winter Garden Citrus Growers Association v. Willits, supra. The jury obviously believed that they had occurred, and an examination of the record here convinces us that they had sufficient evidence upon which to render the verdict they did. It follows that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cnty. OF Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1997)…plied covenant that the parties will perform in good faith. In construction contract law an [*1051] owner has (a) an implied obligation not to do anything to hinder or obstruct performance by the other person, Gulf American Land Corporation v. Wain, 166 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), (b) an implied obligation not to knowingly delay unreasonably the performance of duties assumed under the contract, Southern Gulf Utilities Inc. v. Boca Ciega Sanitary District, 238 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert.…
-
Champagne-Webber, Inc. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale a Mun. Corp., 519 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
-
Lucas v. Orchid Island Props., Inc., 982 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ranty claim that remained for the jury to resolve and the question of whether OIP was entitled to judgment in its favor with respect to the guaranty claim against Lucas was a question of law — not a question of fact. See Gulf Am. Land Corp. v. Wain, 166 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (stating that once jury determined whether alleged acts had actually occurred, it was for court to determine as a matter of law whether such acts constituted breach of contract). Consequently, the trial court did not err in declin…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Olin's, Inc. v. AVIS Rental CAR Sys. OF Fla., 131 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Winter Garden Citrus Growers Ass'n v. Willits, 113 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1933)