RIVIERA PRINTING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
HESSLER'S, 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.
Riviera Printing appealed from summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim based on the Statute of Frauds. The court affirmed the dismissal of the contract claim but reversed the final judgment to allow Riviera to pursue an alternative general assumpsit claim based on transferred assets, remanding for proper procedural handling under summary judgment rules.
The summary judgment was properly entered as to the breach of contract claim, but improperly entered as a final judgment disposing of the entire action. Riviera has a viable cause of action in general assumpsit based on the transferred assets, and the case should be remanded to allow proper amendment of the complaint and further proceedings.
“It further appeared from the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant in general assumpsit. This is true because plaintiff submitted evidence that it had transferred valuable assets to the defendant pursuant to provisions of the alleged oral contract.”
Establishes that despite the Statute of Frauds bar to the contract claim, an alternative remedy exists based on unjust enrichment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiviera Printing alleged an oral agreement with Hessler's for a corporate merger with special provisions. Riviera transferred valuable assets to Hessl…
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 Partial Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment entered in a breach of contract suit. The complaint alleged an oral agreement for a corporate merger, and claimed damages for the breach of special provisions. Upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment it appeared without genuine issue of material fact that the terms of the contract alleged could not be established under the rules of evidence, and that if established as alleged the enforcement of the contract would be barred by the Statute of Frauds, §§ 725.01, 725.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Summary judgment upon the attempt to recover damages for the breach of the contract was therefore properly entered.
*779It further appeared from the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant in general assumpsit. This is true because plaintiff submitted evidence that it had transferred valuable assets to the defendant pursuant to provisions of the alleged oral contract. The final summary judgment as entered would be a bar to any future recovery upon this latter right of action. See Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 577; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40.
A motion for summary judgment is distinguished from motions provided under Rule 1.11, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., in that it is designed to be determined primarily upon an application of the law to the facts of the case. Since the plaintiff brought forward sufficient facts to require a trial if he had properly pleaded his case, he should not be foreclosed from the proof of such facts.
A portion of the rule governing summary judgment, Rule 1.36, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., which is unfortunately seldom used, provides as follows:
“(d) Case Not Fully Adjudicated on Motion. If on motion under this rule judgment or decree is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial, or the taking of testimony and a final hearing, is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel, shall if practicable ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what material facts are actually and in good faith controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. Upon the trial or final hearing of the action the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the trial or final hearing shall be conducted accordingly.”
We hold that the above quoted portion of the rule should be applied in this case in order to accomplish substantial justice which is always the object of the rules. Therefore the judgment is affirmed insofar as it held that the plaintiff cannot recover upon the case made by his complaint but reversed insofar as it is made a final judgment disposing of the action. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter an order in accord with the views expressed in this opinion and such order shall set the terms under which the plaintiff shall be allowed to amend its complaint if it shall be so advised.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…the appellant are found to be meritorious: (1) Evidence which is subject to objection at the time of trial is subject to being noted as unavailable at the time of hearing on summary decree. Riviera Printing Company v. Hessler’s, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 778; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 109. (2) It is not sufficient in defense of a motion for summary judgment to rely on the paper issues created by the pleadings, but it is incumbent upon the party moved against to submit evidence to rebut…
-
Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…d 849; Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592. . Mills v. Joiner, (Fla.1884) 20 Fla. 479. . Price v. Price et ux., (Fla.1880) 17 Fla. 605. . Tate v. Jones, (Fla.1877) 16 Fla. 216. . Riviera Printing Company v. Hessler’s Inc., (Fla.App.1959) 109 So. 2d 778; Todd et ux. v. Hyzer, (Fla.1944) 18 So. 2d 888. . Minsky’s Follies of Florida Inc. v. Sennes, (CCA 5th 1953) 206 F. 2d 1. . Edwards v. Young, (Ma.App.1958) 107 So. 2d 244. . Cortina v. Cortina, (Fla.1957) 98 So. 2d 334. . Riviera Printing Compa…
-
Pollock v. Kelly, 125 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 175; Williams v. City of Lake City, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 732. . Smith v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 440. . Rule 1.36(e), F.R.C.P. 30 EIS.A. . Riviera Printing Company v. Hessler’s, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 778. . P.S. § 90.05, P.S.A. — “Witnesses; as affected by interest. No person, in any court, or before any officer acting judicially, shall be excluded from testifying as a witness by reason of his interest in the event of the action or proceeding, or b…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sebastian v. THE City of Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)