HORIZON IMAGES, INC. AND JOHN SPATUZZI, APPELLANTS,
v.
DELTA COLOR GRAPHICS, INC., ET AL., 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.
A third party can maintain a breach of contract claim only if the contracting parties clearly intended to directly and substantially benefit the third party.
Horizon contracted with Delta for calendar printing; Delta subcontracted with Clark Bros. Horizon sued Clark Bros. as a third-party beneficiary for br…
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 Third Party Beneficiary cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Horizon Images, Inc. appeals the order of the trial court dismissing its complaint against Clark Bros. Die Service, Inc. with prejudice. Horizon had contracted with Delta Color Graphics, Inc. for the printing and manufacture of calendars. Delta subcontracted many aspects of the job to subcontractors, including appellee, Clark Bros. Horizon sought recovery against Clark Bros, for breach of contract under a third party beneficiary theory. On its first attempt to state a third party beneficiary cause of action, the trial court dismissed with prejudice. We reverse.
In order for a third party to maintain a breach of contract, the parties must have clearly intended that the contract directly and substantially benefit the third party. Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1971). Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Const., 604 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Weimar v. Yacht Club Point Estates, Inc., 223 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). In our opinion while the complaint in question lacked necessary allegations to state a cause of action under a third party beneficiary theory, it is possible that Horizon may be able to do so and it should be given that opportunity. See Jacobson at 18, citing Hamer v. Kahn, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Our reversal should not be construed as a holding that one who purchases a product from a contractor, produced in part by subcontractors, can always sue the subcontractors as a third party beneficiary, because this is not the law. Publix Super Markets v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), citing 4 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 779D, at 47 (1951), and Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 illustration 19 (1981). There must, as we stated above, be a clear intention in the contract between Delta and Clark Bros, to directly and substantially benefit Horizon, in order for Horizon to sue on the third party beneficiary theory.
Reversed.
WARNER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Tampa v. Thornton-Tomasetti, P.C., 646 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ntered into for the direct and substantial benefit of a third party, it binds and benefits only the parties themselves. Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1971); Horizon Images, Inc. v. Delta Color Graphics, Inc., 639 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The intention of the contracting parties, gleaned from the contract itself, is determinative. Technicable Video Systems, Inc. v. Americable of Greater [*283] Miami Ltd., 479 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). It is not enough that t…
-
Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 716, 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming dismissal because “the contract attached to the complaint shows no intent to directly and substantially benefit the [third-party]”) (emphasis added); Horizon Images, Inc. v. Delta Color Graphics, Inc., 639 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[T]here must ... be a clear intention in the contract between [the contracting parties] to directly and substantially benefit [the third-party], in order for [the third-party] to sue on the third-party beneficiary theory.”…
-
Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. v. Cmty. Ass'n Servs., Inc., 770 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…so affirm the dismissal of this count because the developer has failed to plead sufficient facts to show that the contract between the association and CAS was intended to benefit the developer. See Horizon Images, Inc. v. Delta Color Graphics, Inc., 639 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Finally, we also affirm the dismissal of the malpractice complaint because there was no allegation that CAS was a professional, and no privity of contract was alleged. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1971)
- Dade Cnty. Pub. Safety Dep't & CNA Ins. Cos. v. Adams, 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Rolf E. Weimar v. Yacht Club Point Ests., Inc., 223 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Constr. Co., Inc., 604 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Young v. State, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Hamer v. Kahn, 404 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)