CITY OF PENSACOLA, FOR THE USE OF EDWARD M. CHADBOURNE,
v.
M. A. QUINA, JR., AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment, finding that the awarded damages for a street paving contract breach were not legally inadequate. The court determined that the jury's award, approved by the trial judge, was reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of justice.
No, the amount of damages awarded was not legally inadequate. The court found that the contract rights, as reasonably interpreted, did not mandate a greater award than what the jury determined and the trial court approved.
“It is not entirely clear that the contract rights of the parties, as such rights could reasonably have been interpreted by the court and the jury, require as matter of law a greater award of damages to the plaintiff than that fixed by the jury and approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not finding the damages legally inadequate.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, City of Pensacola, sued for breach of a street paving contract against M. A. Quina, Jr., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.…
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 Inadequate Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error herein was taken by the plaintiff below upon the ground that the amount of *511damages awarded by the verdict and adjudged by the trial court to the plaintiff, is' inadequate for the alleged breach of contract rights in a street paving undertaken.
It is not entirely clear that the contract rights of the parties, as such rights could reasonably have been interpreted by the court and the jury, require as matter of law a greater award of damages to the plaintiff than that fixed by the jury and approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial; therefore, it is not shown that there is an abuse of discretion by the trial judge or a miscarriage of justice, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Terrell and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAX Bauer Meat Packer, Inc. v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., 280 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ould have given more serious consideration to the question of a possible abuse of discretion. Appellee’s second point directed to the amount of the damages is insufficient in view of the rule stated in City of Pensacola for Use Chadbourne v. Quina, 138 Fla. 510, 189 So. 688 (1939). Affirmed.…