JAMES EDWARDS, ET AL.,
v.
JOHN O. EVANS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A construction contract dispute between a homeowner and contractor regarding whether the contractor abandoned work or was prevented from completing it by the owner's conduct. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's findings that both parties engaged in wrongdoing, denying the contractor's full claim for interest while preserving his lien rights for materials and labor expended.
The court found ample evidence in the record that the contractor did not abandon the work as a matter of law, and that both parties engaged in wrongdoing. The contractor's builder's lien for materials and labor was upheld, but interest on the disputed amount ($2,500.83) was disallowed due to the misconduct of both parties.
“We hardly feel justified in holding as a matter of law that the contractor abandoned the construction work.”
The court rejected the owner's primary contention that the contractor had abandoned the project, finding instead that both parties engaged in wrongdoing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 29, 1941, Edwards (owner) and Evans Construction (contractor) entered a contract to build a dwelling for $8,300, to be completed within 90 da…
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 Abandonment Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
On April 29, 1941, James Edwards, as owner, and John O. Evans Construction Co., as contractor, signed a contract for the construction of a dwelling. Pertinent provisions, of the contract are viz: (1) the work was to be completed within ninety days; (2) the costs thereof was fixed at $8,300.00; (3) the drawings and specifications of the building previously agreed upon between the parties by appropriate language were made a part of the contract. Some work was done under the contract, resulting in a near completion of the building, when friction arose between the parties and the owner taking over and finishing the building.
*264Suit was brought for an accounting, when the contractor,' by answer, sought a builder’s lien on the property for materials and labor by him' expended on the building for the owner. Considerable testimony was offered by the respective parties. ■ The owner contended that the contractor abandoned the contract and it became his lawful duty to take over the unfinished work and complete it. The contractor contended that he did not abandon the building, but the conduct and attitude of the owner was such that rendered it impossible for him to complete the building.
The lower court by appropriate order' ref erred the cause to a special master, with directions to take all the testimony and report the same, and the controversy was heard in the lower court on this report., We have carefully studied and considered all the evidence in the record and the briefs of counsel, and able oral argument has been heard at the bar of this Court. We find ample testimony in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the chancellor below. We hardly feel justified in holding as a matter of law that the contractor abandoned the construction work. The heavy investment by the owner in the property necessitated his immediate taking over and completion of the project. Evidence of wrong doing on the part of both parties appears in the record. It is for this reason that the interest on the $2,500.83 should be disallowed and the costs of this appeal equally divided between the parties.
The decree appealed from is modified so as to exclude interest and as modified is hereby affirmed. Costs of the appeal is assessed equally in amount against the parties.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…ntend that appellant was not entitled to prejudgment interest because this was an equitable suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien rather than a legal action to enforce a contract. They rely upon Edwards v. John O. Evans Construction Co., 155 Fla. 263, 19 So. 2d 799 (1944); Horne v. C & R Building Materials, Inc., 321 So. 2d 617 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Sharpe v. Ceco Corp., supra; and, Gerber Groves, Inc. v. Belle Glade Agricultural Contractors, Inc., 212 So. 2d 669 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). The Edwards case was decided be…
-
Variety Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…te[d]” at that time. This contention runs afoul of one of the most basic rules of statutory construction: that words, particularly technical ones, must be interpreted in the specific context in which they are used. See Alsop v. Pierce, 155 Fla. 185, 19 So. 2d 799, 803 (1944). Every case upon which Variety relies deals with a legal problem which is totally different from the one before us.2 The issue in this case concerns only the proper interpretation of Sec. 768.20 which provides that the pending action sha…
-
Basil J. Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1961)…law, see 24 Fla.Jur. Parties Section 7 (1959). . Cobb v. Board of Com’rs of Orange County, 1944, 155 Fla. 60, 19 So. 2d 505 wherein the Board brought an action for a declaratory judgment which was rendered; and Alsop v. Pierce, 1944, 155 Fla. 185, 19 So. 2d 799 which was an action for a declaratory judgment by Alsop as Mayor against George A. Pierce and others as and constituting the City Commission of the City of Jacksonville. . See also State ex rel. Baker v. Gray, 1938, 133 Fla. 23, 182 So. 620, 625.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence