LAMITU CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STOTTLER STAGG AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AND CAZO/RODRIGUEZ-TELLAHECHE & ASSOCIATES, P.A., APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed judgment for architect's breach of contract claim; actual construction was not a condition precedent for payment but merely the time set for payment, and defendant's cancellation of construction plans did not relieve its obligation to pay for services rendered.
When a contract specifies that payment is due at a particular time (such as upon construction), the occurrence of that event is not a condition precedent to payment but merely the time for payment, and if the defendant prevents that time from arriving, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for services rendered.
[1] When a contract specifies payment at a particular future event, that event is the time for payment rather than a condition precedent, and the party preventing that event…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLamitu Corporation hired an architectural firm to design a house and agreed to an oral modification regarding payment terms. After the architectural p…
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 Payment Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant [technically the counterdefendant] from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff [technically the counter-plaintiff] sought to recover for architectural services performed for the defendant. The sole point on appeal is that the plaintiff failed to establish an alleged condition precedent in order to recover on the oral modification agreement sued upon, to wit: the actual construction of the defendant’s house, which construction the defendant in fact cancelled after the architectural plans were drawn.
We find no merit in this point and affirm because the construction of the house was not a condition precedent for payment under the contract, but was merely the time set for payments thereunder. Because the defendant prevented that time from arriving by cancelling the plans to build the house, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for services rendered pursuant to the contract. See Peacock Constr. Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla.1977); Poinsettia Dairy Prods., Inc. v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306 (1936); Sharp v. Machry, 488 So. 2d 133, 135-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So. 2d 795, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Poinsettia Dairy Prods., Inc. v. The Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1936)
- Peacock Constr. Co., Inc. v. Modern AIR Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1977)
- Babe, Inc. v. Baby's Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Stebbins v. Stebbins, 488 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Sharp v. MacHry, 488 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)