WILLIAM F. CHATLOS, D/B/A GOLDEN GATE HOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
MORSE AUTO RENTALS, INC., 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.
William Chatlos, operating the Golden Gate Hotel, appealed a judgment that awarded him $2,250 plus interest but also awarded Morse Auto Rentals $2,800 on its counterclaim for lost revenue, resulting in a net judgment against Chatlos. The court reversed, holding that Morse, having breached the rental agreement by failing to make a required payment, could not recover damages for the plaintiff's subsequent closure of the hotel.
The court held that because the right to operate the door concession was dependent upon Morse's duty to pay, Morse's breach of that payment obligation placed it in a position where it could not successfully maintain an action for breach of contract based on the plaintiff's failure to keep the hotel open.
“It is apparent that the right to operate the door concession was dependent upon the defendant's duty to pay.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that performance is mutually dependent, meaning Morse's failure to pay was a material breach.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorse Auto Rentals contracted in writing to pay Chatlos $9,000 for the right to operate a door concession at the Golden Gate Hotel from December 1, 19…
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
The plaintiff, William F. Chatios, doing business as the Golden Gate Hotel, appeals a final judgment in favor of the defendant, appellee, Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., which was entered subsequent to a non-jury trial. The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff against Morse for $2407.50 ($2,250.00 plus interest) upon the complaint and for the defendant on its counterclaim in the amount of $2800; therefore, the final judgment was for the defendant against the plaintiff in the amount of $392.50. Since the parties stipulated, at pre-trial conference, that plaintiff was entitled to $2,250.00, we need not consider the judgment for the plaintiff upon his complaint. We reverse the finding upon the counterclaim upon the basis that the trial judge applied the wrong rule of law.
The facts before the trial court were in the main uncontroverted. The defendant, Morse Auto Rentals, contracted, in writing, to pay the plaintiff $9000 for the right to operate a door concession on the hotel premises from December 1, 1963 to December 1, 1964. On March 30, 1964, the final payment of $2,250 was due from Morse to the plaintiff. Defendant did not make this payment. Subsequently, on June 7, 1964, the plaintiff closed the hotel so that there was no further opportunity for performance on the part of the defendant. The judgment for the plaintiff was for the final payment, plus interest. The judgment for the defendant ■on its counterclaim was for its loss of revenue caused by closing the hotel.
It is apparent that the right to operate the door concession was dependent upon the defendant’s duty to pay. See Steak House v. Barnett, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 736. Having breached the contract by a failure to pay, 'the defendant was not in a position to successfully maintain an action for breach of •contract upon the plaintiff’s failure to keep the hotel open. See 6 Williston, Contracts § 871 (3d ed. 1962). Compare Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 795.
Having reached the conclusion that it was erroneous to award damages to the defendant on its counterclaim, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
SWANN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waters v. KEY Colony E., Inc., 345 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ixed as liquidated damages under the agreement. We affirm. A party to a contract cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing to avoid responsibility thereunder. Walker v. Chancey, 96 Fla. 82, 117 So. 705 (1928); Chatlos v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., 183 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966); Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Company, 512 F. 2d 901 (5th Cir. 1975); 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, §§ 147, 148. A party to a contract, who agrees to accept a sum as liquidated damages, cannot sue for actual damages. Stone, Sand & Gravel C…
-
Cheezem Dev. Corp. v. Intracoastal Sales & Serv., Inc., 336 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…ns have been filed against it. As the party who initially committed á substantial breach of the contract, Intra-coastal was not entitled to avail itself of a claimed subsequent breach by Cheezem. Chatios v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., Fla.App.3d 1966, 183 So. 2d 854; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 365; 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 458. Moreover, even the effect of the breach attributed to Cheezem; i. e., removal of its counter signature from payroll checks for Intracoastal, appears of little concern inasmuch as Intracoas…
-
D.D. Jackson v. Riley, 427 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…llard v. Krause, 248 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). . Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Berkowitz v. Anderson & Wallace Constr. Co., Inc., 260 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). . Chatios v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., 183 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).…
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
- Steak House, Inc. v. Barnett, 65 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1953)
- Babe, Inc. v. Baby's Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)