CORAL PLAZA CORPORATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MOSES HERSMAN, 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.
Coral Plaza Corporation appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Moses Hersman on his counterclaim for breach of a construction contract. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and holding that the contract itself entitled Hersman to payment for work performed upon breach.
The trial court committed no reversible error. The refusal to admit the letters was not prejudicial because oral testimony covering the same evidentiary content was presented. The jury charge, while not a model charge, was not clearly erroneous under the facts. The jury verdict was supported by sufficient competent evidence and was within the range of testimony regarding damages.
“In the event of breach of this Article, this contract shall be null and void and the subcontractor shall be paid for the work which it has performed and the materials which it had furnished to the date of breach.”
Establishes the contractual provision that entitled Hersman to payment for work and materials upon breach, which formed the basis for the affirmance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoral Plaza sued Hersman for breach of a written construction contract. Hersman counterclaimed and the jury awarded him $5,300.00 in damages. The cont…
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 Damages Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Coral Plaza Corporation, appeals from a final judgment rendered after a jury verdict. Coral Plaza was the plaintiff in a suit which it filed seeking to recover damages for an alleged breach of a written agreement by Moses Hersman, defendant. Hersman counterclaimed and was awarded $5,300.00 as his damages by the jury verdict.
The appellant submits five points on appeal for reversal. The first point concerns the refusal by the trial court to permit three letters offered by the plaintiff into evidence during the trial. Assuming arguendo, that the letters might have been admissible, the record reveals that there was oral testimony presented to the jury which contained the same evidence which would have been presented had the letters themselves been introduced into evidence. We do not find, under these circumstances, that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the refusal of the trial court to permit the intro*673duction of the three letters into evidence. Fla.Stat. § 59.041, F.S.A.
The plaintiff also contends that reversible error was committed by the trial court judge in drawing up the jury charge and submitting a charge to the jury which was prejudicial and erroneous. We have examined the charge submitted to the jury and observe that it is not necessarily a model charge. Nevertheless, an examination of the charge as a whole does not indicate that it was clearly erroneous under the facts proven in this case. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 499; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 17. We find that reversible error was not committed in this regard.
Assuming arguendo, that error was committed under one or all of the points claimed by the appellant, we agree with the point argued by Hersman to support an affirmance. The written contract between the parties provided certain remedies in the event that Hersman breached its terms and conditions. Article III provided in part:
“In the event of breach of this Article, this contract shall be null and void and the subcontractor shall be paid for the work which it has performed and the materials which it has furnished to the date of breach.”
Assuming that Hersman was at fault and that he did breach the contract, he was entitled, under the provisions of the contract, to be paid for the work which he had performed and the materials which he had furnished to the date of the breach. There was evidence before the jury concerning the amounts of money paid and labor expended upon the construction job in question. The amount of the verdict returned by the jury was within the range of the testimony and evidence presented by Hersman to establish the damages which he had sustained on this job. We find sufficient, competent evidence in the record to sustain the jury verdict and that no reversible error was committed in the trial of this cause. The final judgment herein appealed be and the same is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Santa Rosa Tractor Co., Inc., 366 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…nd answer form, thereby rendering the letter itself cumulative. Accordingly, even if the learned trial judge did err in excluding the letter (with which conclusion I do not agree) that exclusion was harmless error. (See Coral Plaza Corp. v. Hersman, 220 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969) cert. denied 229 So. 2d 867 and Delano Hotel, Inc. v. Gold, 126 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1961). See also Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).) I would grant appellee’s Petition for Rehearin…
-
Grayson v. Fishlove, 266 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ersonally. Therefore we do not further consider the trial court’s refusal to admit the documents on the ground that no harmful error could possibly have resulted. Fla.Stat. § 59.041, F.S.A. See Coral Plaza Corporation, Inc. v. Hersman, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 672. The fourth point urges error because the trial court assessed interest on the value of the notes. Although the complaint in this action claimed interest as an element of damages, it appears from the record that appellees did not request the trial…
-
Michl v. Gen. Elec. Co. & Gray Stores, Inc., 526 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986); 3-M Corp.—McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Coral Plaza Corp. v. Hersman, 220 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1969); see also Robison v. Faine, 525 So. 2d 903, 905 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Cf. State, Dept. of Transportation [*1047] v. Alvarez, 490 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 543 (Fla.…
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
- Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stiles v. Calvetto, 137 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)