SALEEBA
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. CO.
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 circuit court dismissed a plaintiff's claim for directory advertising errors because a valid contractual limitation of liability clause capped damages at the amount of charges for the erroneous advertisement, which the defendant had already credited.
A contractual provision limiting a telephone company's liability for directory advertising errors to the amount of charges for the affected advertisement is valid and enforceable.
[1] A contractual limitation of liability clause capping damages for telephone directory advertising errors at the amount of charges for the affected advertisement is valid a…
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 intelligence“The Telephone Company's liability on account of errors in or omissions of such advertising shall in no event exceed the amount of charges for the advertising which was omitted or in which the error occurred in the then current directory issue.”
Contractual provision limiting defendant's liability for directory advertising errors
Plaintiff sued Southern Bell Telephone & Telephone Co. for damages resulting from an error in defendant's telephone directory. The parties' contract c…
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 Contractual Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard and plaintiff having amended his complaint by attaching the original contract sued on and such original contract containing this provision—
“Par. 5. The Telephone Company’s liability on account of errors in or omissions of such advertising shall in no event exceed the amount of charges for the advertising which was omitted or in which the error occurred in the then current directory issue.”
And this suit claiming damages because of an alleged error in defendant’s telephone directory covered by said contract.
And the parties having stipulated that pursuant to said paragraphs and prior to the institution of suit, defendant had adjusted plaintiff’s bill to give him credit for the amount of charges for the advertising in which the error occurred in the telephone directory involved;
*160And the courts having uniformly held that this limitation of liability provision is valid (see Neering v. Southern Bell, 169 Fed. Supp. 133, a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of. Florida at Jacksonville and the authorities therein cited; Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company, 117 Atl. 2d 873; and order of dismissal entered in an identical case by this court on July 10, 1959, in Houghton v. Southern Bell, Case No. 59-806-L) upon consideration, it is considered, ordered and adjudged the above entitled case be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Advance Serv., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla., 187 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
-
Julington Creek Marina, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 35 Fla. Supp. 183 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)
-
Original N.Y. Meat Mkt. of Miami Beach, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 21 Fla. Supp. 151 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1963)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence