JOHN F. GAISFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
PERRY NEUSCHATZ, 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.
An unlicensed Florida architect sued a defendant for breach of contract for work preparing architectural plans and specifications for a motel. The court held that preparing and delivering plans before obtaining a Florida license constituted a single isolated act that did not constitute unlicensed practice of architecture in violation of Florida law, making the contract enforceable.
The court held that the preparation and delivery of the plans prior to obtaining a Florida license was an isolated act that did not constitute unlicensed practice of architecture rendering the contract unenforceable. Accordingly, the contract was enforceable, and summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
“The preparation and delivery ,of the plans prior to certification in Florida was an isolated act and did not constitute such practicing of architecture in Florida as would render the contract unenforceable.”
Establishes the court's holding that a single transaction by an unlicensed architect does not violate licensing laws in a manner that makes the contract void.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1962, Gaisford (a defendant) contacted Neuschatz (an architect licensed in California and Arizona) in Phoenix, Arizona to negotiate a contrac…
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 Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by defendant, John F. Gaisford, from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Perry Neuschatz.
In March 1962 the plaintiff, an architect licensed to do business in California and Arizona but not licensed to practice architecture in Florida, was contacted in Phoenix, Arizona, by the defendant who sought to negotiate a contract of professional employment.
*636The negotiations eventually resulted in the execution of a contract in Florida whereby plaintiff agreed to prepare plans and specifications for a motel to be erected at Eau Gallie, Florida, for the defendant. In November 1962 plaintiff was issued a certificate to practice as an architect in Florida in accordance with the provisions of F.S.A. § 467.11. Prior to his receiving said certificate, he completed the plans and specifications and delivered them to the defendant.
Defendant has contended that an architect unlicensed in Florida may not recover on a contract which calls for him to practice architecture in violation of F.S.A. Chapter 467. The preparation and delivery ,of the plans prior to certification in Florida was an isolated act and did not constitute such practicing of architecture in Florida as would render the contract unenforceable. See Johnson v. Delane, 1955, 77 Idaho 172, 290 P.2d 213. The issue of whether or not said plans complied with the contract and could have been used as a basis for obtaining a permit for the construction of said building in Florida was not raised and therefore not considered by the trial court or by this court.
The damages awarded by the trial court in its summary judgment have been assigned as error. The record shows that the plaintiff submitted by affidavit a statement of the amount of liquidated damages. No counter affidavits were filed nor was there any denial of the amounts due. The plaintiff demonstrated an absence of genuine issues of material facts. The defendant did not rebut this showing as required by the rule announced in Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So.2d 40.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rofessions, see, e. g., D & L Harrod, Inc. v. U. S. Precast Corp., 322 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (carrier); Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (stock broker), and as to the practice of architecture, see, Gaisford v. Neuschatz, 201 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1967) (implicitly recognizing that a contract made in violation of Chapter 467 would be unenforceable, but finding plaintiff’s activity an isolated transaction not constituting the practice of archit…
-
Gaisford v. Neuschatz, 207 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So. 2d 635.…
-
O'Kon & Co., Inc. v. Riedel, 540 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…endix 24-27). A review of Dixon’s deposition reveals that O’Kon was aware of the statutory requirements involving the practice of architecture in Florida, but never acted on. the provisions to meet the statutory requirements. Gaisford v. Neushcatz, 201 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied 207 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1967), cited by O’Kon, is not applicable. In that case, appellant, an out of state architect, had applied for his Florida certificate, and while a waiting its arrival, completed the requested plans an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)