CEMENT ROOFING INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MORGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF TAMPA, 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.
Affirmed judgment for Morgan Construction's damages for lost profits where Cement Roofing prevented issuance of a building permit by failing to timely perform a condition precedent, constituting breach of contract under the prevention doctrine.
A party's prevention or hindrance of a condition precedent to contract performance constitutes a breach of contract unless the prevention is caused by the other party's conduct or the contract allocates that risk.
[1] A party's prevention or hindrance of a condition precedent to contract performance constitutes a breach of contract entitling the other party to damages for lost profits,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Prevention or hindrance by a party to a contract of any occurrence or performance requisite under the contract for the creation or continuance of a right in favor of the other party, or the discharge of a duty by him, is a breach of contract, unless (a) the prevention or hindrance is caused or justified by the conduct of the other party, or (b) the terms of the contract are such that the risk of such prevention or hindrance as occurs has been assumed by the other party.”
Restatement, Contracts § 315(1) establishing the prevention doctrine
Morgan Construction agreed to construct a building for Cement Roofing Industries. Morgan was ready to perform but was denied a building permit because…
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 Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
Morgan Construction Company of Tampa agreed to construct a building for Cement Roofing Industries, Inc. It was ready to perform but was denied a building permit because of Cement Roofing’s failure to perform timely a condition precedent to its issuance. These facts found by the trial judge are supported by substantial, competent evidence. Morgan sued for and got damages for loss of profit on the contract.
Restatement, Contracts § 315(1) states:
(1) Prevention or hindrance by a party to a contract of any occurrence or performance requisite under the contract for the creation or continuance of a right in favor of the other party, or the discharge of a duty by him, is a breach of contract, unless
(a) the prevention or hindrance is caused or justified by the conduct of the other party, or
(b) the terms of the contract are such that the risk of such prevention or hindrance as occurs has been assumed by the other party.
The trial judge explained his ruling in a well reasoned order, citing numerous cases. See also Sharp v. Williams, 1939, 141 Fla. 1, 192 So. 476; Continental Casualty Company v. Reddick, Fla.App.1st 1967, 196 So.*582d 239; Keystone Acceptance Corp. v. Dynalectron Corp., 1971, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 445 F.2d 729; 6 Corbin, Contracts § 1264.
Affirmed.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1939)
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Reddick, 196 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Keystone Acceptance Corp. v. Dynalectron Corp., 445 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1971)