A-1 QUALITY CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
OAK PARK TERRACE, 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 a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the contract contemplated services requiring a contractor's license, precluding summary judgment.
A-1 Quality Corp., an unlicensed contractor, sued Oak Park Terrace, Inc. for breach of contract. Oak Park moved for summary judgment, arguing the cont…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Oak Park Terrace, Inc. (“Oak Park”), finding that A-l Quality Corp. (“A-l”) was a contractor that undis-putedly did not have a license and thus could not enforce its contract with Oak Park. We reverse as a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether the parties’ contract contemplated that A-1 would perform services requiring a contractor’s license.
Oak Park moved for summary judgment, arguing that pursuant to section 489.128, Florida Statutes (2007), entitled “Contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors unenforceable,” A-l could not enforce its contract with Oak Park because A-l was an unlicensed contractor. See § 489.105(3), Fla. Stat. (2007) (“ ‘Contractor’ means ... the person who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real estate, for oth-*167ers_”). A-l responded that the parties’ contract contemplated that A-l would perform only services that did not require a contractor’s license, thereby exempting A-l from the licensing requirement. See § 489.128(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (“For purposes of this section, if no state or local license is required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work shall not be considered unlicensed.”). We find the instant contract ambiguous as to whether A-1 would provide services requiring a license. Thus, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.1
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin Bldg. Co. v. Rago, Ltd., 63 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ly to an “individual” and not a “business organization.” We disagree. In a recent case, the Fourth District reversed a summary judgment against a business organization on the identical issue of licensure. A-1 Quality Corp. v. Oak Park Terrace, Inc., 32 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In A-l, the trial court had granted summary judgment after determining that, under section 489.128, Florida Statutes (2007), the business organization could not enforce its contract because it was an unlicensed contractor. A-l Q…