N.A.P. CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ELECTRON TUBES INTERNATIONAL, 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.
N.A.P. Consumer Electronics brought suit to collect an account receivable against Electron Tubes International, which counterclaimed for antitrust violations or breach of a repurchase agreement. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the main claim and for the defendant on the counterclaim, but the appellate court affirmed the plaintiff's judgment while reversing the counterclaim judgment on jurisdictional and evidentiary grounds.
The court affirmed the judgment on the original complaint but struck the language conditioning payment on electronic tubes. The court reversed the counterclaim judgment because antitrust violations are exclusively within federal jurisdiction and because the evidence failed to establish a clear undertaking by the appellant to assume the responsibilities of the appellee's previous merchandise supplier.
[1] A jury's gratuitous language added to a verdict, which is not supported by the evidence or the law, should be stricken from the final judgment.
[2] Antitrust claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.
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“the damages sought were recovered under a theory that would be supportable only as an antitrust violation, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts”
Establishes the basis for reversing the counterclaim judgment on jurisdictional grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceN.A.P. Consumer Electronics sued Electron Tubes International to collect an account receivable. The defendant counterclaimed seeking damages for an al…
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 Jury Verdict Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The appellant, as plaintiff, brought a suit to collect an account receivable. The appel-lee, defendant, filed a counterclaim seeking relief in the nature of an antitrust violation or an agreement to repurchase merchandise. The cause proceeded to a jury trial and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on its complaint and verdict for the defendant on its counterclaim. The verdict for the plaintiff was in the sum of $71,159.55 with the following language having been added by the jury:
“To be paid by Defendant with electronic tubes received from Plaintiff and now held by Defendant. Value will be established at original purchase price.”
This verdict was subsequently approved by the trial court with the final judgment in accordance with the terms thereof. The verdict on the counterclaim was in the amount of $250,000.00 and a final judgment in accordance with this verdict was entered for this amount.
On appeal the appellants contend, first, that the trial court erred in approving the gratuitous language attached to the jury verdict in its favor, which was incorporated in the final judgment, second, that the trial court erred in finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction of an alleged antitrust violation and lastly that the trial court erred in certain rulings relating to discovery and compliance with a pretrial order. We affirm the judgment on the original complaint in the amount of $71,159.55 but strike therefrom the language:
Turning now to the judgment of the counterclaim we reverse, first, because the damages sought were recovered under a theory that would be supportable only as an antitrust violation, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, International Ladies Garment Workers Union v. Scherer & Sons, Inc., 132 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), approved Scherer & Sons, Inc. v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 142 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1962); Freeman v. Bee Machine Company, Inc., 319 U.S. 448, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509 (1943); Blumenstock Brothers Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publishing Company, 252 U.S. 436, 40 S.Ct. 385, 64 L.Ed 649 (1920), and second, because the evidence fails to establish a clear undertaking on the part of the appellant of the responsibilities and obligations of a previous supplier of merchandise to the appel-lee. White v. Exchange Corporation, 167 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Pulsnation Enterprises, Inc. v. Appliance Plan Company, 141 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Therefore for the reasons above stated the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed with directions to the trial court to eliminate the surplus language.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. Bee Mach. Co., Inc., 319 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1943)
- Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publ'g Co., 252 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1920)
- Scherer & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 415, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 142 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1962)
- White v. The Exch. Corp., 167 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. Scherer & Sons, Inc., 132 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- COX v. COX, 141 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Pulsnation Enters., Inc. v. Appliance Plan Co., 141 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)