BEVERAGE CANNERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
E. D. GREEN CORPORATION AND INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Beverage Canners, Inc. appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of E. D. Green Corporation for repair costs on compressors. The court affirmed, holding that Green Corporation was entitled to summary judgment because it acted only as a seller and had no responsibility for installation or assembly by Beverage Canners' own employees.
Summary judgment was properly entered because Green Corporation's role was limited to selling equipment to Continental Can Company, with no involvement in installation or assembly. Beverage Canners' own employees installed the compressors, so Green had no liability. Mere contrary allegations and conclusory denials of liability are insufficient to preclude summary judgment.
[1] A trial judge may decide a question of law on a motion for summary judgment when the basic facts are clear and undisputed.
[2] Mere contrary allegations in an answer are insufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Plaintiff, E. D. Green Corporation, acted only in the capacity of selling the equipment to Continental Can Company which in turn sold it to defendant Beverage Canners, Inc. Beverage Canners, Inc. installed and assembled the equipment with its own employees. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to his summary judgment.”
Establishes the basis for summary judgment: Green's limited role as seller with no involvement in installation absolves it of liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE. D. Green Corporation sold two compressors manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand to Continental Can Company, which then sold them to Beverage Canners, Inc.…
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 Personal Knowledge Requirement For Affidavits cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of plainti f f-appellee.
Plaintiff, E. D. Green Corporation, a distributor of equipment manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand Company, sold two (2) compressors to Continental Can Company. Defendant, Beverage Canners, Inc., is a customer of Continental which designed the physical layout of defendant’s plant and machinery. Beverage Canners purchased from Continental Can the two compressors which plaintiff Green Corporation previously had sold to Continental. Green delivered the equipment along with the manufacturer’s warranty to defendant’s plant and defendant’s employees installed the compressors which then were put into operation. Several months later one of the compressors blew up. Defendant called plaintiff to repair the compressor which was shipped to plaintiff’s Atlanta premises, repaired, and returned to defendant. Green billed Beverage Canners for the repairs and parts. Defendant refused to pay and plaintiff filed suit in the Civil Court of Record to recover damages based on the cost of repairs and parts. Defendant generally denied the allegations of the complaint, affirmatively alleged set-off, filed a counterclaim against plaintiff and a third party complaint against Ingersoll-Rand for negligence and breach of warranty and demanded a jury trial. The cause was removed to Circuit Court. Plaintiff Green moved for summary judgment. An opposing affidavit was filed by I. J. Wollowick, President of Beverage Canners, Inc. The court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ complaint and against defendant on the counterclaim. The issues raised against Ingersoll-Rand are not the subject of this appeal.
Defendant-appellant, Beverage Canners, Inc., contends that it was error to enter summary judgment.
It is elementary that a trial judge has the power to decide the question of law on a motion for summary judgment where basic facts are clear and undisputed. Duprey v. United Services Automobile Association, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 57; Richmond v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 687. In the case sub judice, the record does not establish the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact. Plaintiff, E. D. Green Corporation, acted only in the capacity of selling the equipment to Continental Can Company which in turn sold it to defendant Beverage Canners, Inc. Beverage Canners, Inc. installed and assembled the equipment with its own employees. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to his summary judgment.
We are not ignoring the fact that defendant in its answer generally denied the *241allegations of the complaint and filed an opposing affidavit to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. However, mere contrary allegations are not sufficient to preclude a summary judgment. Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 626. This court also has held that an affidavit of a defendant denying liability as a conclusion of law is insufficient to raise a genuine issue as to material fact and where defendant’s answer has no more, summary judgment is properly entered against defendant. Sherman v. Weintraub, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 421.
In addition, a search of the record reveals that defendant’s opposing affidavit was not based upon personal knowledge as required by RCP 1.510(e), 31 F.S.A. See also P & T Electric Company v. Spadea, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 234; Orthwein v. Cobbs Fruit & Preserving Company, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 607.
For the reasons herein stated, the judgment of the lower court must be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillip Fredericks & the Monroe Educ. Ass'n v. The Sch. Bd. OF Monroe Cnty., 307 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…the grievance procedure. “It is elementary that a trial judge has the power to decide the question of law on a motion for summary judgment where basic facts are clear and undisputed.” Beverage Canners, Inc. v. E. D. Green Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 239, 240. We next approach the question of whether The Monroe Education Association has standing to file and participate as a party-plaintiff to this litigation. There is no doubt that the Association may assist by providing legal reperesentation and r…
-
Bev. Canners, Inc. v. E. D. Green Corp. & Ingersoll-Rand Co., 291 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1974)…ERVIN, Justice. We consider petition for writ of conflict certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case of Beverage Canners, Inc., v. E. D. Green Corporation, et al. (1973) 276 So. 2d 239. Respondent, E. D. Green Corporation, is a distributor of industrial air compressors. Petitioner, Beverage Canners, Inc., is in the business of canning carbonated soft drinks and uses air compressors as part of its operation. Continental Can Co. (“…1 / 2
-
Akeley v. Beaumont Morgan and Randy Cooper, 332 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…for the trial judge to enter the summary judgments as to Counts I and III, as well as hold the defendant Cooper liable as to Count II. Keller v. Penovich, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 243; Beverage Canners, Inc. v. E. D. Green Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 239; Fredericks v. School Board of Monroe County, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 463; § 925.01, Fla.Stat. The trial court erred as to the defendant Morgan. He should also be liable under Count II and we reverse the judgment in his favor, and direct the trial…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richmond v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 58 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1952)
- Werner Roske, Jr. v. State, 254 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Sherman v. Weintraub, 132 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Adolph B. Orthwein v. Cobbs Fruit & Preserving Co., 229 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- P & T Elec. Co., Inc. v. Spadea, 227 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Lanzner v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 141 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)