GEORGE P. WATERS AND CHARLES F. DUCHEIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEY COLONY EAST, INC., ET AL., 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.
Trial court properly refused to return a down payment and refused to award damages beyond the liquidated damages sum fixed in the deposit receipt contract, affirmed because a party cannot profit from its own wrongdoing and cannot recover actual damages when it has agreed to liquidated damages.
A party to a contract who agrees to accept a liquidated damages sum cannot recover actual damages, and a party cannot profit from its own wrongdoing to avoid contractual responsibility.
[1] A party to a contract who has agreed to accept a specified sum as liquidated damages cannot subsequently sue for actual damages beyond that sum.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaters and Duchein, as prospective purchasers, entered into a deposit receipt contract for real property with Key Colony East, Inc., and a dispute aro…
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 Actual Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial judge refused to return a down payment or deposit to a prospective purchaser under a deposit receipt contract involving real property, and refused to award the seller damages beyond the sum fixed as liquidated damages under the agreement. We affirm.
A party to a contract cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing to avoid responsibility thereunder. Walker v. Chancey, 96 Fla. 82, 117 So. 705 (1928); Chatlos v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., 183 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966); Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Company, 512 F. 2d 901 (5th Cir. 1975); 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, §§ 147, 148. A party to a contract, who agrees to accept a sum as liquidated damages, cannot sue for actual damages. Stone, Sand & Gravel Company v. United States, 234 U.S. 270, 34 S.Ct. 865, 58 L.Ed. 1308 (1914); Coca-Cola Bottling Works (Thomas) Inc. v. Hazard Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 450 S.W. 2d 515 (Ct.App.Ky.1970); Ashley v. Lance, 80 Wash.2d 274, 493 P. 2d 1242 (1972); 9A Fla.Jur., Damages, § 115; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages, § 235; Cf. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 285 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1973).
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowers v. Medina, 418 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ooperation is withheld, the recalcitrant party is estopped from availing himself of his own wrong doing. Holston v. Bernal, 407 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Fernandez v. Vasquez, 397 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Waters v. Key Colony East, Inc., 345 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court was also correct in rejecting the defense that without the funds to pay the full purchase amount ap-pellees were not ready, willing and able buyers. In equity the requirement of a tender of purchase money means a…
-
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. DelGUIDICE, 790 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…conditions occur. The parties by their contract agreed ahead of time to the remedy of repair and retreatment.2 “A party to a contract, who agrees to accept a sum as liquidated damages, cannot sue for actual damages.” Waters v. Key Colony East, Inc., 345 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The “sum” agreed to as liquidated, damages in this case was the repair of any damages caused by termites and any re-treatment necessary to prevent reinfesta-tions. By the holding in this case we do not mean to suggest that DelGu…
-
Foster J. Cullum, IV v. R.G. Packo & O.K. Cap, LLC, 947 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ave been received by the addressee.”); Neuman v. Ferris, 432 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (finding the mailing of a check constitutes delivery of payment when payee directs payor to pay by mail). See generally Waters v. Key Colony East, Inc., 345 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (holding that a party who prevents or hinders performance cannot take advantage of the other party’s lack of performance). Assuming, arguendo, that actual possession of the check controls, Packo raised the failure to cure as an a…
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
- Walker v. Chancey, 96 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1928)
- Stone v. United States, 234 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1914)
- Ballard v. EL Dorado Tire Co., 512 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co., 285 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Chatlos v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., 183 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)