PEACOCK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MODERN AIR CONDITIONING, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Peacock Construction appeals a summary judgment in favor of Modern Air Conditioning, a subcontractor claiming breach of contract. The court held that a contract provision conditioning final payment on the owner's payment to the general contractor is not a condition precedent but rather an absolute promise to pay within a reasonable time after completion and payment request.
The contract provision is not a condition precedent but rather an absolute promise to pay. Payment was due and owing to the subcontractor within a reasonable time after the subcontractor completed its work and requested final payment, regardless of whether the owner had fully paid the general contractor.
[1] A contract provision requiring final payment to a subcontractor within 30 days after completion of work, written acceptance by the architect, and full payment by the owne…
[2] A provision in a subcontract stating that final payment is contingent upon the owner's payment to the general contractor is generally interpreted as an absolute promise t…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a provision such as the one we are considering in this case is an absolute promise to pay and that payment is merely postponed for a reasonable time after completion of the subcontractor's work and request for payment”
The court's holding on the central legal issue: the contract provision creates an obligation to pay within a reasonable time, not a condition precedent dependent on the owner's payment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeacock Construction (general contractor) hired Modern Air Conditioning (subcontractor) to perform all heating and air conditioning work on a condomin…
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 Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant/defendant appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of appel-lee/plaintiff in an action for breach of contract.
Appellant, a general contractor, entered into a contract with appellee, a subcontractor, providing that appellee would do all the heating and air conditioning work in a condominium development. According to the terms of the written contract appellant would make final payment to appellee
within 30 days after the completion of the work included in this sub-contract, written acceptance by the Architect and full payment therefor by the Owner. It is undisputed that appellee has completed the work under the contract, that appellee requested final payment, that appellant has not made the payment, and that appellant has not been fully paid by the owner of the development.
The question for our determination is whether the above-quoted contract provision is a condition precedent to appellant’s liability. We agree with the finding of the trial court expressed in the judgment that it is not and that payment was due and owing to appellee within a reasonable time after it was requested. We adopt the view of the majority of jurisdictions, which we consider the better view, that a provision such as the one we are considering in this case is an absolute promise to pay and that payment is merely postponed for a reasonable time after completion of the subcontractor’s work and request for payment.1 See, e. g., A. J. Wolfe Co. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc., 355 Mass. 361, 244 N.E. 2d 717 (1969).
AFFIRMED.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . We are aware of the fact that the Third District Court of Appeal has taken the minority view holding that this provision is a condition precedent. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Astor Electric Service, Inc., 328 So. 2d 522 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock Constr. Co., Inc. v. Modern AIR Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1977)…though not yet operated, was complete per the plans and specifications. Original Record, p. 37. Sup.Ct. Case No. 50,758. . The owner, a corporation, had entered proceedings in bankruptcy. . Peacock Construction Co. Inc. v. Modern Air Conditioning, 339 So. 2d 294 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). . Schuler-Haas Elec. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, 49 A.D.2d 60, 371 N.Y.S.2d 207 (1975); Howard-Green Elec. Co. v. Chaney & James Const. Co., 12 N.C.App. 63, 182 S.E. 2d 601 (1971); A. J. Wolfe Co. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc.,…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Warren Bros. Co., 355 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1978)…k’s and, concomitantly, to petitioner’s obligation of payment. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, rendered a per curiam affirmance, citing as authority its decision in Peacock Construction Company, Inc. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 339 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In so doing, the court adopted the majority view that the provision in issue does not establish a condition precedent. Rather, it constitutes an absolute promise to pay, fixing payment by the owner as a reasonable time for when p…
-
Dyser Plumbing Co. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Ross Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 515 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…asonable time had passed after completion of the project. Ross argued that the owner’s payment is not a condition precedent to the contractor’s obligation to pay a subcontractor, citing Peacock Construction Co., Inc. v. Modem Air Conditioning, Inc., 339 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) [.Peacock /]. Dyser argued that payment of the retain-age by the owner was an express contractual condition precedent to Dyser’s obligation to pay Ross’ retainage. Paragraph 5.(e) of the contract between Dyser and Ross provid…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Astor Elec. Serv., Inc., 328 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)