H.D. CALLAWAY, D/B/A CALLAWAY & ASSOCIATES, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, 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.
The court held that the contract required payment for assistance rendered, not for achieving a specific outcome.
[1] A contract provision requiring assistance in a claim does not condition payment on the assistant achieving a specific outcome, absent clear language to that effect.
[2] A court errs in construing a contract to require a result not explicitly stated when the contract's language is clear and unambiguous.
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 intelligenceAppellant assisted Appellee with an impact and delay claim as per contract. The claim was resolved in Appellee's favor after trial and arbitration. Ap…
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 Breach Of Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*501] PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the trial court denying Appellant’s claim for breach of contract. Because we find the trial court erred in construing the parties’ contract, we reverse and remand.
The contract at issue required Appellant, H.D. Callaway, to “assist [Appellee, Roberts Electrical Contractors, Inc.] in the ... Impact and Delay Claim on the Gulf Coast Community College Student Services Project.” The contract provided that once assistance was given, Callaway would be paid either 10% of Roberts’ gross recovery if settled out of court, or 15% of Roberts’ gross recovery if resolved by litigation.1 Callaway subsequently provided assistance to Roberts on its initial Impact and Delay Claim against Roberts’ general contractor, Lord & Son Construction. Following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, Roberts’ claim went to trial and was eventually resolved in Roberts’ favor through arbitration. See Lord & Son Const, v. Roberts Electrical Contr., Inc., 624 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Callaway requested Roberts pay him as provided in the contract. Roberts refused, and Callaway brought suit.
The trial court denied Callaway’s breach claim, construing the parties’ contract in a manner that would allow Callaway to be paid only if Roberts’ recovery was the result of Callaway’s assistance. The trial court found that, while Callaway provided assistance under the contract, the assistance did not result in Roberts’ ultimate recovery.
We reject the trial court’s construction. The contract is clear and unambiguous and only required Callaway to assist Roberts with its Impact and Delay Claim. Payment of Callaway’s fee was not dependent on his obtaining a specific result. Since the trial court found that Callaway provided assistance under the contract, Callaway is entitled to be paid.
We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to enter judgment for Callaway.
BARFIELD, C.J., and BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., concur. . Under the facts before us, "gross recovery” does not include costs and attorney fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lord & SON Constr., Inc. v. Roberts Elec. Contractors, Inc., 624 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)