VAGABOND TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL INNS OF AMERICA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, D/B/A ADMIRAL BENBOW INN, 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.
Vagabond Travel sought specific performance for an alleged contract to rent 150 hotel rooms during the 1984 Super Bowl. The trial court granted summary judgment for Universal Inns, finding hotel rooms are not unique and Vagabond had an adequate remedy at law through damages. The appellate court affirmed the denial of specific performance but reversed the denial of Vagabond's motion to amend to add a damages claim, finding such amendment should have been permitted given the adequate remedy at law rationale.
The court affirmed the summary judgment denying specific performance because hotel rooms are not unique objects and Vagabond has an adequate remedy at law through damages. However, the court reversed the denial of the motion to amend because, given the adequacy of the legal remedy, Vagabond should be permitted to amend its complaint to pursue a damages claim.
[1] Specific performance is not an appropriate remedy for a contract to rent hotel rooms when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for compensatory damages.
[2] A hotel room is not considered a unique object for the purpose of specific performance.
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“Because we find that Vagabond does have an adequate remedy at law, we affirm the final summary judgment, denying specific performance. However, in view of the fact that such denial, and our affirmance thereof, was based on Vagabond having an adequate remedy at law, we direct the trial court to grant Vagabond's second motion to amend the pleadings to allow Vagabond to state a cause of action for damages.”
The court's core holding that while specific performance is properly denied, the motion to amend to pursue damages must be granted because damages are the adequate remedy at law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 18, 1982, Vagabond initiated an action seeking damages and specific performance for an alleged contract to rent 150 hotel rooms during the 1984…
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 Mutuality Of Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Vagabond Travel and Tours, Inc., (“Vagabond”), plaintiff below in an action for specific performance of a contract, appeals a final summary judgment rendered in favor of Universal Inns of America, Inc., doing business as Admiral Benbow (“Ben-bow”), and an order of the lower court denying Vagabond’s motion to amend the complaint. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On May 18, 1982, Vagabond initiated an action seeking damages and specific performance of an alleged contract to rent 150 hotel rooms during the 1984 Super Bowl. Benbow filed a motion to dismiss, and thereafter Vagabond filed an amended complaint which excluded the claim for damages pursuant to instructions from the client.
After discovery, Benbow moved for summary judgment on January 26, 1983, on the grounds that no genuine issues as to any material fact existed and that Benbow was entitled to summary judgment holding, as a matter of law, that Vagabond was not entitled to the remedy of specific performance.
On February 21, 1983, the trial court heard Benbow’s motion for summary judgment. Although the record does not show when the trial date was set, evidently, prior to the February 21 hearing, trial was set for March 8, 1983. On February 22, 1983, the trial court instructed Benbow’s counsel to prepare a summary judgment in Benbow’s favor. On February 24, 1983, Vagabond filed a motion to amend the amended complaint for the inclusion of an additional cause of action for damages against Ben-bow. However, prior to hearing Vagabond’s motion to amend, final summary judgment was entered on February 28, 1983. The trial court entered the order granting summary judgment on the following grounds: 1) hotel rooms are not unique objects so as to entitle Vagabond to specific performance of any purported agreement relating to the use of hotel rooms; 2) Vagabond had an adequate remedy at law via an action for compensatory damages; 3) the alleged agreement was unilateral in nature, there being no mutuality of obligation or mutuality of remedy; and 4) a prior commitment of Benbow with the National Football League rendered Benbow incapable of complying with the alleged agreement with Vagabond.
The motion to amend, not having been disposed of, was heard by the trial court on March 7, 1983. Thereafter the court entered an order denying Vagabond’s motion to amend the complaint. In its order, the court found that Vagabond’s claim for damages appeared to be premature and, in any event, the proposed second amended complaint attempted to state a new and different cause of action and sought to introduce new issues and materially vary the grounds for relief.
On March 10 and 17,' 1983, Vagabond filed motions for rehearing which were denied by the trial court on April 8, 1983.
On appeal, Vagabond challenges the findings of the trial court in the order granting summary judgment as well as the order denying Vagabond’s second motion to amend the complaint. Because we find that Vagabond does have an adequate remedy at law, we affirm the final summary judgment, denying specific performance. However, in view of the fact that such denial, and our affirmance thereof, was based on Vagabond having an adequate remedy at law, we direct the trial court to grant Vagabond’s second motion to amend the pleadings to allow Vagabond to state a cause of action for damages.
Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment and reverse the order denying Vagabond’s second motion to amend the complaint.
AFFIRMED in PART, REVERSED in PART, and REMANDED.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terex Trailer Corp. v. McILWAIN, 579 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…the general rules associated with equity is that equity will not entertain jurisdiction where the law affords an adequate remedy, for to do so would interfere with the valuable right to a jury trial. Vagabond Travel & Tours, Inc. v. Universal Inns, 440 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); City of Cocoa v. Sullivan Packing Co., 167 So. 2d 750, 752-753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); 22 Fla.Jur.2d, Equity § 20 (1980). Another general principle is that ordinarily the equitable remedy of specific performance is not available to e…
-
Dimauro v. Martin, 359 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…02. Specific performance is an appropriate remedy only when there is no adequate remedy at law, and a party that has an adequate remedy at law is not entitled to specific performance. Vagabond Travel and Tours, Inc. v. Universal Inns of Am., Inc., 440 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Specific performance is available only where, under the circumstances of a particular case, an action at law for compensatory damages for the defendant’s breach of the contract by virtue of his or her failure to carry out th…