HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS CO., INC., PETITIONER,
v.
BOB STATON, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the Commissioner erred in failing to award agreed-upon interest on advances, but substantial evidence supported the finding of impossibility of performance for the orange delivery contract.
Staton contracted to deliver oranges from specific counties, but a freeze made performance impossible. The Commissioner found impossibility but erred …
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 Impossibility Of Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
The Commissioner’s finding that Staton’s delivery of oranges “from various groves located in Highlands and Hardee Counties” was frustrated by a freeze which made performance legally impossible is supported by substantial competent evidence. Impossibility of performance of agricultural contracts varies according to whether the seller contracts to sell his own produce, in which case an individual crop failure constitutes legal impossibility, or whether an obligation is assumed to furnish fruit regardless of source. In the latter case there is still such a concept as legal impossibility, and the Commissioner did not mis-perceive the question involved. Contrary to Holly Hill’s contention, Staton’s obligation was not to buy fruit wherever he could find it in order to fulfill the contract. His obligation was to find fruit, if possible, even at greater expense than anticipated, in Highlands and Hardee Counties. That is what he bargained to do, but the Commissioner determined that performance was impossible. See Annotation, 84 A.L.R.2d 103; Corbin, Contracts, cc. 74, 75; 17 Am. Jur.2d, Contracts § 402.
The Commissioner did err in failing to give effect to the agreement of the parties with respect to interest payable on advances to Staton. A separate agreement, involving a mortgage, fixed a rate of interest at nine per cent, permitted by law. The agreement was incorporated by reference into the contract out of which this dispute arose, and the Commissioner had jurisdic*585tion of the matter under Fla.Stat. § 601.66 (1971), F.S.A. The entire controversy should have been adjudicated. The denial of interest as agreed on the advances repayable by Staton was error.
Certiorari granted. The order is approved except with respect to the amount of damages, but is quashed and the cause is remanded for entry of an order in accordance with this opinion.
HOBSON, J., and PIERCE, J. (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. The Fish Peddler, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…igence of third persons as an excuse for nonperformance. That is not a legal excuse for nonperformance where, as here, the contract was simply to provide a certain quantity and quality of product. See Holly Hill Fruit Prods. Co. v. Bob Staton, Inc., 275 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also Valencia Ctr., Inc. v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 464 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(discussing doctrines of frustration of commercial purpose and impossibility of performance). In any event Lango-Taura could show that it…
-
Fla. Fruit Sales, Inc. v. Kingfisher Groves, 343 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…United States Department of Agriculture under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 499a et seq. See also, the opinion of this court in Holly Hill Fruit Products Co., Inc. v. Bob Staton, Inc., Fla.App.2d 1973, 275 So. 2d 583, wherein we held that when the Commissioner determined the liability of a fruit dealer, that dealer’s entire contract was before the Commissioner and it was error for the Commissioner to fail to adjudicate the claimant’s right to interest as provide…
-
Fla. Emp'rs Ins. Serv. Corp. v. Norco, Inc., 723 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…NCCI may not have constituted a defense in the breach of contract [*878] action, and therefore the contract action cannot be considered to be dispositive as to the intervening cause issue. See Holly Hill Fruit Products Co., Inc. v. Bob Staton, Inc., 275 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also Valencia Center, Inc. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence