D & L HARROD, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HARROD BROTHERS TRUCKING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
U. S. PRECAST CORPORATION, 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.
D & L Harrod, Inc. appealed a trial court judgment denying damages for breach of contract by U.S. Precast Corporation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trucking contract was unenforceable as contrary to public policy because appellant operated without obtaining the required Florida Public Service Commission certification.
The court held that the contract was unenforceable because it was contrary to public policy. Appellant operated without the required certification mandated by Chapter 323, Florida Statutes, and therefore could not recover damages for breach of an illegal contract.
[1] Contracts for the performance of acts declared unlawful without a license, or enacted for the protection of the public, are unenforceable if performed without the require…
[2] A contract for intrastate motor vehicle transportation services is unenforceable if the performing party has not obtained the necessary certification from the Florida Pub…
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“When a statute declares it to be unlawful to perform certain acts without first obtaining a license permitting the performance of such acts and imposes a penalty for the violation thereof, or where the statute prohibiting certain acts is enacted for the protection of the public, contracts made for the performance of such acts without first obtaining the appropriate license, are unenforceable.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that contracts requiring licensure without obtaining the license are unenforceable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1973, Harrod Brothers Trucking, Inc. entered into a contract with U.S. Precast Corporation for local hauling of manufactured products within…
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 Unenforceable Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks reversal of a final judgment entered against it in an action for damages.
In August, 1973, the predecessor in interest to appellant, Harrod Brothers Trucking, Inc., entered into a contract with appellee, defendant in the trial court, for the local truck hauling, i. e., hauling within the State of Florida, of appellee’s manufactured products. Harrod Brothers Trucking, Inc., began operating and hauling pursuant to said contract. Subsequently, in December, 1973, a new contract was entered into between appellant and appellee for the same services. This new contract was identical to the first contract, except the corporate name of Harrod Brothers Trucking, Inc., was changed to D. & L. Harrod, Inc., appellant herein, which continued hauling operations for appellee.
The record indicates that an application was filed by Harrod Brothers, Inc., with the Florida Public Service Commission pursuant to Chapter 323, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for a contract carrier’s certificate to authorize it to engage in the hauling operations contracted for with appellee. The record further indicates that the State of Florida has not issued such certification to appellant.
The gravamen of appellant’s action for damages in the trial court was that appel-lee had breached its contract with appellant by failing to give the 160 day cancellation notice, as required by the contract. Appellant sought damages for the loss of profits for the 160 day period. It is from the judgment of the trial court denying the claim for damages that appellant appeals.
The basic question for this court to decide is whether or not the contract between the parties is contrary to the public policy of this state and therefore unenforceable. This question we answer in the affirmative.
When a statute declares it to be unlawful to perform certain acts without first obtaining a license permitting the performance of such acts and imposes a penalty for the violation thereof, or where the statute prohibiting certain acts is enacted for the protection of the public, contracts made for the performance of such acts without first obtaining the appropriate license, are unenforceable. Edwards v. Trulis, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 893; 30 A.L.R. 834. The contract sub judice is one for transporting manufactured products by motor vehicle over the roads and highways of the State of Florida, the authorization for which is subject to the approval by certification of the Florida Public Service Commission under Chapter 323, Fla.Stat., F.S. A. Here, such certification was never obtained by appellant. In fact, appellant was arrested on at least two occasions for operating without such certification.
The enactment of Chapter 323, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was for the protection of the public. State ex rel. Fohl v. Karel, Fla.1937, 180 So. 3; § 323.25, Fla.Stat., F. S.A. Section 323.35, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that violation of the provisions of Chapter 323 constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
In our opinion, since appellant was not properly certificated by the State Public Service Commission to engage in the trucking activities contracted for with appellee, the contract sought to be enforced by appellant is contrary to the public policy of this state and therefore unenforceable. There is no legal remedy for that which is illegal itself. Local No. 234, etc., v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 818; Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 1931, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714; Robert G. Lassiter & Co. v. Taylor, 1930, 99 Fla. 819, 128 So. 14; Gonzalez v. Trujillo, Fla. App.1965, 179 So. 2d 896.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…v. Emmett, 234 So. 2d. 530 (La. 3d Cir.Ct.App.), writ refused, 236 So. 2d 502 (La.1970). Florida courts have recognized the rule as it pertains to the practice of various regulated professions, see, e. g., D & L Harrod, Inc. v. U. S. Precast Corp., 322 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (carrier); Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (stock broker), and as to the practice of architecture, see, Gaisford v. Neuschatz, 201 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1967) (implicitl…
-
Castro v. Sangles, 637 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…equity.”); Stewart v. Steams & Culver Lumber Co., 56 Fla. 570, 587-88, 48 So. 19, 25 (1908) (contracts violating public policy designed for public welfare are illegal and will not be enforced by the courts); D & L Harrod, Inc. v. U.S. Precast Corp., 322 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (“There is no legal remedy for that which is illegal itself’; carrier who hauled goods without license in violation of statute enacted for protection of public denied recovery under contract). It is true, as the plaintiffs po…
-
Title & Tr. Co. OF Fla. v. Parker, 468 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…108 Fla. 633, 149 So. 203 (1933); Nizzo v. Amoco Oil Co., 333 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This rule is based on the rationale that there can exist no legal remedy for that which is itself illegal; D. & L. Harrod, Inc. v. U.S. Precast Corporation, 322 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Gonzalez v. Trujillo, 179 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). To summarize, we hold that it was not error for the trial court to consider the fact that the underlying loan transaction here involved criminal usurious activity as defin…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Local NO. 234 OF United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. OF United States & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1953)
- Robert G. Lassiter & Co. v. Taylor, 99 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1930)
- Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084 (Fla. 1931)
- Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- State v. Karel, 131 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1937)
- Gonzalez v. Trujillo, 179 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)