COMMODORE PLAZA AT CENTURY 21 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CARIBBEAN PARKING AND SECURITY SYSTEMS, 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/defendant appeals a judgment for appellee/plaintiff in a breach of contract action involving a security gate system. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that a contractor cannot be denied recovery based on the owner's failure to obtain required permits when the contract explicitly placed that duty on the owner.
The contract was enforceable and the contractor could recover the unpaid balance. A contract is not illegal merely because one party failed to comply with its obligations; the contract must be illegal on its face or intended to accomplish an unlawful end. One party cannot benefit from the other party's breach of contractual obligations.
[1] A contract is not rendered illegal and unenforceable on its face when its purpose is not unlawful or reprehensible, even if performance requires compliance with external…
[2] A party to a contract cannot benefit from their own failure to fulfill a contractual obligation, thereby preventing the other party from recovering under the contract.
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“general contract law provides that one party to a contract cannot, by his own wrongdoing, benefit at the expense of the other party to the contract”
Establishes the core legal principle that a party cannot use its own breach or wrongdoing as a defense to avoid payment to the other party
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and appellee entered into a contract for construction of a security gate system. The contract specified that the owner (appellant) was respo…
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 Illegality Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/defendant appeals from a final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lee/plaintiff pursuant to a jury verdict on a breach of contract action.
Appellant and appellee entered into a contract wherein the latter was to construct a security gate system for the former. In pertinent part, the contract provided that the:
“Purchaser [Owner] shall be responsible for all permits, licenses and applicable taxes. Purchaser [Owner] shall be responsible to provide all electrical service and permits necessary to install and properly operate equipment listed on reverse side.”
It was uncontradicted that no permits were ever obtained for the construction of said system.
Pursuant to the contract and various modifications thereto, appellee completed the security gate system. Notwithstanding the absence of any complaints concerning the construction of the system, appellant, which had made partial payments pursuant to the contract, refused to pay appellee the balance of the contract price.
Suit was ultimately brought by appellee to collect the unpaid sums of money due from appellant. Prior to trial, appellant attempted to assert the defense that pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, a builder-contractor who fails to obtain a building permit prior to construction cannot recover the cost of construction (contract price) from the owner. Appellant’s rationale was that pursuant to Sections 301, 304.1 and 305 of the South Florida Building Code, to “construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building, structure, or any part thereof” without first acquiring a permit is an illegal act, and contracts dealing with the doing of an illegal act are unenforceable, as against public policy.
Based upon the above quoted provision of the contract whereby the duty to obtain building permits was placed upon the owner, i. e., appellant, the trial judge rejected the “illegality” defense. The case thereupon proceeded to trial, culminating in a jury verdict for appellee. Final judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict and this appeal follows.
After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, it is our opinion that the final judgment must be affirmed. The contract sued upon was not “illegal” on its face; that is, the purpose of the contract was not to accomplish an unlawful or reprehensible end, injurious to the interest of society. If the security system was “illegal,” it was only “illegal” because appellant failed to comply with its contractual obligation. Clearly, general contract law provides that one party to a contract cannot, by his own wrongdoing, benefit at the expense of the other party to the contract. See generally 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts §§ 147, 148 and cases cited therein.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.