BASIC FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE WACKENHUT 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.
Affirmed judgment for Wackenhut Corporation on account stated for security services rendered to Basic Food Industries, rejecting the defendant's affirmative defense that services were performed for a separate corporate entity.
An account stated exists between the parties for security services rendered, and the defendant's affirmative defense that services were performed for a separate corporate entity fails when unsupported by competent evidence.
Wackenhut Corporation furnished guard and security services to fruit orchards and packing plants of Basic Food Industries in central and northern Flor…
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 Corporate Identity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals a final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $6,998.54 plus interest and costs in this action to recover on an account stated.
Plaintiff, the Wackenhut Corporation, filed a complaint alleging that at the request of the defendant, Basic Food Industries, Inc., it had furnished guard and security services to various fruit orchards and packing plants of the defendant in central and northern Florida; that in spite of the fact on several occasions it had sent to the defendant invoices for services rendered (totaling $6,998.54), defendant refused to pay them. Basic Food Industries by way of affirmative defense alleged that services performed by Wackenhut were requested by and performed for a separate corporate entity, Peaches of Florida, Inc., in which Basic Food Industries is a shareholder. The trial judge found that the defendant had failed to prove its affirmative defense, and there was an account stated between the parties. Thereupon, final judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. We affirm.
There being no dispute as to the performance of the guard services or the value of these services as reflected in the invoices and there being substantial competent evidence in the record to support the finding of the trial judge, we will not disturb this determination and the resultant final judgment for plaintiff for $6,998.54.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merrill-Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. "Corniche Express" & owner Myron Wisotsky, 400 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…365 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (client engaged and accepted services); Breezy Bay, Inc. v. Industria Maquiladora Mexicana, S.A., 361 So. 2d 440 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) (impliedly admitted to correctness of invoices); Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corp., 323 So. 2d 1 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) (defendant failed to prove it had not requested services). The action for an account stated is an action for a sum certain, Monte Produce, Inc. v. Delgado, 126 Ariz. 320, 614 P. 2d 862 (1980); Horace Mann Insurance Company v. Casua…
-
Raben Builders, Inc. v. First Am. Bank & Tr. Co., 561 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ces provided by Peat Marwick and thereafter failed to object to the invoiced amount. The record evidences an unrebutted claim for an account stated and we affirm the judgment entered thereon. See Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corporation, 323 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Jenkins, 301 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). AFFIRMED. WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion. . Section 46.015 Fla.Stat. (1987) provides: (1) A written covenant not t…
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. F.A. Conner, 420 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases collected therein. The trial judge’s finding that appellant failed to make a case on either theory is supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal. Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corp., 323 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…