JOHN GAINES, APPELLANT,
v.
TREASURE SALVORS, INC., 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.
Appellant Gaines appealed a summary judgment in a breach of contract action arising from a treasure salvage agreement. The court affirmed, holding that the contract had expired by its own terms after one year and that any breach claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Treasure Salvors, holding that the contract unambiguously expired after one year and that any cause of action for breach accrued no later than July 22, 1970, when Gaines received notice the contract had ended. Because Gaines did not file suit until August 1975—more than five years later—the claim was barred by Florida's statute of limitations.
[1] A contract for an expedition to locate sunken treasure, with a duration of one year from commencement, expires by its own terms at the end of that period.
[2] A cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the non-breaching party is put on notice that the other party deems the contract to be at an end.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is both clear and unequivocal that, by its terms, the contract was to last for only one year”
Establishes that the contract's duration was unambiguous and expired by its own terms after one year.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 20, 1968, Gaines and Treasure Salvors entered a contract for financing an expedition to locate and salvage the Spanish ship Nuestra Señora…
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 Breach Of Contract Accrual cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by appellant/plaintiff from a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee/defendant, on appellant’s complaint for breach of contract.
On February 20, 1968, appellant and appellee entered a contract for the financing of an expedition to locate and salvage the treasure of a sunken Spanish ship, the Nuestra Señora de Atocha. By the terms of the contract, appellee agreed to conduct the expedition and pay appellant one percent of the treasure recovered in exchange for One Thousand Dollars. The contract was to expire one year from the commence ment of the expedition. At the end of that period of time, if no profit had been realized, certain collateral given to appellant by appellee, in the form of ancient coins, was to automatically vest in appellant.
The expedition commenced at sea on February 28, 1968. After the duration of one year, appellant was notified by letter, dated March 14, 1969, of the lack of the expedition’s success in locating the sunken treasure ship. The letter informed appellant that the contract had expired and, as no profits had been realized, appellant was entitled to keep the collateral.
On July 22, 1970, appellee sent a second letter to appellant, again stating that the contract had expired and formally transferring legal title to the coins to appellant. Appellant did not respond to either letter but instead kept the collateral. Years later, on August 28, 1975, upon learning of appel-lee’s eventual success in discovering the sunken ship, appellant filed a complaint for breach of contract.
The trial judge was of the opinion that the statute of limitations had run on an action for breach of contract and found no genuine issues of material fact prohibiting him from entering summary judgment in favor of appellee. From the entrance of said judgment, this appeal follows.
After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that appellee was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Firstly, it is both clear and unequivocal that, by its terms, the contract was to last for only one year. Secondly, even assuming a breach of contract could have been maintained, any cause of action for same would have accrued on February 28, 1969, or, at the latest, July 22, 1970, when appellant was put on notice that appellee deemed the contract to be at an end. Instead of objecting to the letters of the above dates, appellant took permanent possession of the collateral and silently acquiesced for over five years. When, at last, appellant decided to file his complaint, the cause of action had been effectively barred by the statute of limitations. Section 95.-ll(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faber v. Zola Gold and Gerald Silver, 557 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rt properly entered summary judgment for the appellees on the ground that the statute of limitations barred the claims asserted. See Dovenmuehle, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 478 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Gaines v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 352 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Meyer v. Roth, 189 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 198 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1967). We do not consider the other grounds advanced for affirmance. Affirmed.…