M. R. COGGIN AND A. DEERMONT, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE AND FIRM NAME OF COGGIN & DEERMONT,
v.
C. C. MOORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, AND PAUL SMITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION
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.
Coggin & Deermont sought payment for hauling sand 10 miles to their batching plant under a construction contract, but the contract terms clearly required them to furnish sand either F.O.B. the railhead or to their plant at their own expense. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendants, holding the contract unambiguous and plaintiffs' claim unsupported.
The contract language is unambiguous and clearly placed the responsibility for furnishing fine aggregate either F.O.B. the stock pile or F.O.B. cars at the railhead on the contractor-bidder. Plaintiffs' withdrawal of their conditional assumption before acceptance bound them to the contract as written, and they are entitled only to any difference between the cost of loading trucks from the stock pile versus from railroad cars—not compensation for the 10-mile haul.
“Bidder shall submit prices in spaces shown below for batch material delivered in Dump Trucks from Batching Plant to Paver based on Cement and Coarse Aggregate being furnished F.O.B. cars at Railhead and FINE AGGREGATE FURNISHED VIA TRUCK TO BIDDER'S PLANT OR F. O. B. CARS AT RAILHEAD.”
The original invitation for bids language establishing that fine aggregate was to be supplied either via truck to bidder's plant or F.O.B. cars at railhead, placing the delivery burden on the bidder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoggin & Deermont submitted a bid on a construction project based on an invitation for bids that specified fine aggregate would be furnished either F.…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us to review judgment in favor of defendants on demurrer sustained to amended declaration.
The disposition of the cause turns on the construction of the contract entered into between plaintiffs and defendants which was pleaded in the declaration and proposed amendments thereto.
We find no ambiguity in the contract which requires jüdicial interpretation.
The material part of the invitation for '¿ids was as follows :
“Bids shall be based on Cement and Coarse Aggregate-be? ing furnished by the Purchaser F.O.B. Cars at the railhead in Panama City, Florida, and the fine aggregate being ..furnished by the purchaser either F.O.B. Stock pile or F.O.B. cars at the railhead in Panama City, Florida.”
“Bidder shall submit prices' in spaces shown below for bat.ch material delivered in Dump Trucks from Batching Plant to Paver based on Cement and Coarse Aggregate being furnished F.O.B. cars at Railhead and FINE AGGREGATE FURNISHED VIA TRUCK TO BIDDER’S PLANT OR F. O. B. CARS AT RAILHEAD.” (Emphasis supplied).
Pursuant to that invitation, plaintiffs, ,in their letter of acceptance, said:
*627“The foregoing is submitted upon the assumption that Paragraph Two of the invitation for bids means that the sand will be delivered F.O.B. the location of our batcher plant.”
Thereafter, and before the bid was accepted and approved, that provision was called to the attention of the bidder-plaintiff as being irregular and not in conformity, with the provisions of the invitations for bids. Thereupon the bidder-plaintiff withdrew said provision by letter, using the following pertinent language:
“In presenting our bid for invitation No. 273, Requisition No. 767, we accompanied our bid with a letter which among other things contained the following paragraph:
“ ‘The foregoing is submitted upon the assumption that Paragraph two of the invitation for bids means that the sand will be delivered F.O.B. the location of our batcher plant.’
“We hereby withdraw this paragraph from our letter.”
Thereafter, a controversy arose between the parties as to whether or not the contractor-bidder should be paid for hauling sand ten (10) miles from the stock pile at the railhead, Panama City, Florida, to the batcher plant. The defendants refused to pay for said hauling in addition to the contract price bid by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued and suffered judgment to be taken on demurrer sustained.
We think that under the terms of the contract all that the plaintiff was entitled to recover was the .difference, if any, between the cost of loading trucks from the stock pile and the lesser cost of loading trucks at the same place, from cars. But this element of damage, if any, was not contended for the declaration.
We find no reversible error reflected in the record and the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J„ BROWN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., dissents.