ROBERT RUBINSTEIN D/B/A ROBERT RUBINSTEIN INTERIORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MURRAY MESTER, 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.
In this interior design contract dispute, the appellate court reversed a judgment awarding the homeowner $13,500 in damages, finding insufficient evidence of breach by the designer and instead holding that the homeowner breached the contract by unilaterally terminating it based on trivial discrepancies.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain findings of breach by Rubinstein, that the overestimation was too insignificant to justify rescission, and that Mester breached the contract by unilaterally terminating it without legal justification.
[1] A party's dissatisfaction with a contractor's estimate, amounting to less than 1.4% of the total contract price and occurring after approval of the estimate, is insuffici…
[2] A party who unilaterally terminates a contract based on insignificant overestimations or overcharges by the other party breaches the contract.
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“the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court that appellant breached the contract in question and that appellee was entitled to damages”
Establishes the court's primary holding that no valid breach was proven by the homeowner against the designer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1975, Mester hired Rubinstein as an interior decorator and designer, paying an initial $16,500. In June 1975, Mester became dissatisfied with…
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final judgment entered by the trial court on March 2, 1977, after a non-jury trial, in favor of appellee, plaintiff below. We reverse.
In March of 1975, appellee entered into a contract with appellant for his services as an interior decorator and designer. Under the terms of the contract, appellee made an initial payment to appellant of $16,500. Thereafter, the record reflects that appellee became dissatisfied with appellant’s estimate of the number of rolls of wallpaper and the labor charges to hang the paper necessary to complete that portion of the contract. Based upon appellee’s dissatisfaction with appellant’s performance, appellee, by a letter dated June 26, 1975, unilaterally terminated the contract. Thereafter, appellee filed a complaint for damages seeking damages in the amount of $16,500. After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $13,500, and awarded appellant the sum of $3,000 for services rendered under the contract. From this final judgment, appellant brings the instant appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the record and, after considering the evidence in a light most favorable to appellee, have concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court that appellant breached the contract in question and that appellee was entitled to damages. See, e. g., Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Costley, 324 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Apeco Marina, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 301 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. v. Novack, 284 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); and Heath v. First National Bank of Milton, 213 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). The total overestimation and overcharge, if any, under the contract was so insignificant as to not justify a rescission or revocation of the contract. Further, we note that appellee, subsequent to approving the estimates made by appellant under the contract, attempted to base his complaint upon an alleged discrepancy which amounted, at most, to less than 1.4% of the entire contract price.
However, in our opinion, the record does clearly show that appellee breached his contract with appellant; therefore, the' trial court should have granted judgment in favor. of appellant pursuant to his counterclaim set forth in his answer and counterclaim. Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of ascertaining damages under the contract, consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- C. T. Heath and wife v. First Nat'l Bank IN Milton, 213 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co. & Charles Hines v. Novack, 284 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Apeco Marina, Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 301 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Commercial Bank OF Kendall v. Costley, 324 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)