ALTMAN COOLING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA HEAT & POWER, INC., A CORPORATION, AND CARL LAWSON, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Altman Cooling Corporation appealed the trial court's grant of a new trial in an interference with contractual relationship action. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial where the jury verdict had ample support in the record.
Yes, the trial judge abused his discretion. Where a jury verdict finds ample support in the record, no illegal evidence was admitted, and the only result would be to have another jury retry the cause, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in granting a new trial when the verdict has ample support in the record and no illegal evidence was presented to the jury.
[2] To prevail on a claim for interference with a contractual relationship, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a valid contract.
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“In order for appellant to have prevailed on his action based upon interference with a contractual relationship it was necessary for him to establish the existence of a valid contract.”
Establishes the required elements for interference with contractual relationship claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAltman Cooling Corporation brought an action against Florida Heat & Power, Inc. and Carl Lawson based on interference with a contractual relationship.…
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 Interference With Contractual Relations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon examination of the evidence contained in the record on appeal and upon consideration of the applica ble case law, we are of the opinion that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial. In order for appellant to have prevailed on his action based upon interference with a contractual relationship it was necessary for him to establish the existence of a valid contract. 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interference, sec. 1 et seq; Dade Enterprises v. Wometco Theatres, 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (1935); Annotation : 26 A.L.R.2d 1227 et seq. and supplement thereto; cf. Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 278. The evidence on this issue was conflicting and hence more suitably the subject of a jury determination. While we recognize and do by no means intend to stifle a trial court in the exercise of its discretion in granting a new trial where the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, such a determination although clothed with a strong presumption of correctness, must be weighed in the light of the disclosures of the record. North Dade Imported Motors v. Brundage Motors, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 170. In reviewing the record we find no support for the order granting a new trial. As pointed out in North Dade Motors v. Brundage Motors, supra:
“It is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial where the verdict finds ample support in the record, no illegal evidence is shown to have gone to the jury, and all that is to be accomplished is to have another jury try the cause.” (at 176)
See also Nunberg v. Brodsky, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 727. The jury heard the evidence and based thereon rendered its verdict and thereby fulfilled its function.
Accordingly, the order granting new trial is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with respectful directions to reinstate the verdict and enter judgment thereon.
Reversed.
WALDEN, J., and KIRKLAND, THOMAS E., Associate Judge, concur. MAGER, J., dissents.
MAGER, Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm the trial court’s decision granting a new trial based upon the rationale of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669, and the findings contained in the trial court’s order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L & H Constr. Co., Inc. v. Circle Redmont, Inc., 55 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…. We find no error in that determination. The existence of a valid contract is a threshold question of law for the trial court. See Acumen Constr., Inc. v. Neher, 616 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Altman Cooling Corp. v. Fla. Heat & Power, Inc., 305 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). A valid contract arises when the parties’ assent is manifested through written or spoken words, or “inferred in whole or in part from the parties’ conduct.” Commerce P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity Contracting Co., 695 So…
-
Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, 513 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…la. 1st DCA 1966), the plaintiff’s evidence of alleged “Lemon Law” violations by the defendants was contradicted by defense testimony and exhibits; see Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla.1951); Altman Cooling Corp. v. Florida Heat & Power, Inc., 305 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1975); Nunberg [*700] v. Brodsky, 224 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); and the claimed evidentiary error was not properly preserved for appellate review by a proffer of the excluded test…
-
State v. Bowle, 318 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…of the evidence was a jury question and the question of intent was for the jury. Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 252, 256; cf. Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 696; Altman Cooling Corp. v. Florida Heat & Power, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 225. A trial judge is not permitted to sit as a seventh juror with veto power pitting his judgment against that of the jury. Laskey v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 13. The order granting defendant’s motion for new trial constitutes an abuse of discretio…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Dade Enters., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1935)
- Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- N. Dade Imported Motors, Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc., 221 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Drowne v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & DCS/Comptroller, 224 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)