HARRY SIEGEL, RICHARD H. SIEGEL AND ALBERT ABRAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS SIEGEL & ABRAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
RAYBRO ELECTRIC SUPPLIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a summary judgment against general contractors who were sued by an electrical supplier. The court found that genuine triable issues of fact existed regarding the contractors' alleged assurances to the supplier and their agreement to issue joint checks.
Yes, genuine triable issues of fact existed. The contractors denied making the alleged assurances, and there was an unresolved question regarding the amount unpaid. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate.
“On the pleadings and the evidence submitted by the parties for and against the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment there was a denial and issue raised as to the first contention.”
Establishes that the contractors denied the supplier's first claim, creating a factual dispute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn electrical supplier sued general contractors, alleging they assured the supplier that a subcontractor would pay for goods and that the contractors …
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 Admissions In Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, general contractors, appeal from a summary judgment entered against them in favor of a supplier of electrical equipment to a subcontractor who defaulted. The basis on which the supplier, the appellee Raybro Electric Supplies, Inc. sought recovery from the appellant contractors is shown in the appellee’s brief to have been (1) that defendants-appellants “had assured Raybro that Kenny (the subcontractor) would pay for the supplies in question, and that Raybro had supplied the goods in reliance upon these assurances”; and (2) that the defendant contractors agreed to make payments to the subcontractor Kenny by checks made jointly payable to him and Raybro, and had breached that agreement. On the pleadings and the evidence submitted by the parties for and against the plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment there was a denial and issue raised as to the first contention. The court incorrectly charged appellants with admissions by disregarding their answer to certain requests for admissions because such answers, although made by and on behalf of all, were sworn to by only one of them. See 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 1105. In response to the second contention, the contractors admitted the agreement to make payments by check payable to both Kenny and Rajbro, and asserted they did so except in certain instances when Raybro authorized otherwise. Also, there was some unresolved question *498presented as to the correctness of the amount unpaid by Kenny. Accordingly, we hold there were genuine triable issues, and the summary judgment is reversed.
Reversed.