L. C. MORRIS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN F. ALLISON AND DAVID JENKINS, AS TRUSTEE, 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.
The trial court incorrectly directed a verdict for the defendant because the plaintiff may recover under quantum meruit when a partially performed contract is terminated by the defendant.
Plaintiff sued for improvements made to defendant's property under a partially executed contract, alleging entitlement to repayment and quantum meruit…
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 Express Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The prior history of this case may be found in L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, Fla. App.1973, 277 So. 2d 28. After the filing of a mandate pursuant to that opinion, the trial judge allowed the plaintiff Morris to amend its complaint to attempt recovery upon an allegation that it was entitled to repayment for monies expended in the improvement of the defendant's property under the partially executed contract and upon the theory of quantum meruit. The cause went to trial upon these allegations and defendant’s answer thereto.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had relied upon an express contract which, although oral in nature, was set forth specifically in a memorandum offered in evidence. See Triax, Inc. v. City of Treasure Island, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 669 and Alfred S. Austin Construction Co. v. Narnia, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 36.
We hold that the trial court incorrectly directed a verdict because of an exception to the rule expressed in the above cases. The leading case of Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928), specifically sets out that where a partially performed contract is put to an end by the defendant, the plaintiff may recover for its services under the theory of quantum meruit. It is by no means clear that the contract here referred to was put to an end by the actions of the defendant. Nevertheless, it was so alleged and the plaintiff did so testify at the trial. An issue was created which the jury must decide. Accordingly, the final judgment based upon the directed verdict is reversed and this cause is remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Triax, Inc. v. City OF Treasure Island, 208 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Alfred S. Austin Constr. Co., Inc. v. Abe Namia, 220 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 277 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)