NAPLES FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID C. TOWNSEND, 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.
The court held that the trial court misconstrued the contract and parol evidence, leading to an erroneous assessment of damages.
Naples Fruit & Vegetable Company contracted with David C. Townsend to harvest remaining limes. A dispute arose when Naples Fruit requested Townsend ce…
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 Assessment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Naples Fruit & Vegetable Company entered into a contract with David C. Townsend to harvest the remains of the 1970 crop of limes. Subsequently, when appellant thought Townsend had harvested the crop of limes sold to him, they requested Townsend cease picking. This occurred on May 13, 1971. Consideration for the contract was $200, and Townsend had harvested $2,003.50 worth of limes by that date.
Subsequently, Townsend brought suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, enjoining appellant from denying him the right to pick limes after May 13, 1971. The trial judge determined that the contract was ambiguous and allowed parol evidence to clarify the ambiguity. A judgment of $9,915.56 was entered for appellee.
After reviewing the record, the contract, and the evidence, we conclude that the trial judge misconstrued the parol evidence regarding the parties’ intent as to the leftovers from the 1970 crop. We believe it inconceivable that Naples Fruit and Vegetable Company intended to exchange nearly $12,000 worth of limes for $200. Nor do we believe the appellee expected such a return on his investment. Misconstruction of the contract consequently caused error in assessing damages and the damages appear excessive. See generally, James v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953) ; Triple E Development v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., 51 So.2d 435 (Fla.1951); Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194, 103 So. 825 (Fla.1925).
We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
McNULTY, J., and DEWELL, JOHN H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Townsend v. Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co., 281 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 276 So. 2d 222. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.…
-
Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Townsend, 320 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…BOARDMAN, Judge. This is appellant’s/defendant’s second appeal, following the second trial of this cause, which was held pursuant to our remand for a new trial (Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Townsend, Fla.App.2d, 1973, 276 So. 2d 222, cert. den. Fla. 1973, 281 So. 2d 214). In the prior trial, final judgment was entered in favor of appellee/plaintiff, awarding him damages in the amount of $9,915.56. On remand, the parties stipulated to rely on the same testimony that had been off…
Authorities Cited
- James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1953)
- Triple E Dev. Co. v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., 51 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1951)
- Holmes v. Barnard Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1925)
- State v. Brittain, 103 So. 825 (La. 1925)