NATIONAL CITY TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN MILL CREEK PRODUCTS CO., INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
National City Truck Rental appealed a lower court judgment that characterized its lease-purchase agreement as a conditional sale and barred it from recovering unpaid rental charges after repossessing vehicles. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conditional sale characterization and election-of-remedies finding, but reversed to allow recovery for certain operational expenses incurred during the lessee's use.
The court affirmed that the instrument was a conditional sale and that repossession constituted an election of remedies barring recovery of unpaid rental charges. However, the court reversed in part to allow National City to prove unjust enrichment for operational expenses (such as fuel) incurred during the lessee's use, while disallowing recovery for maintenance and repair expenses that benefited the conditional vendor.
“An arrangement which can be terminated only by the end of the world or the purchase of the property cannot be called a lease.”
Establishes that the agreement was properly characterized as a conditional sale, not a lease.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNational City Truck Rental leased vehicles to Southern Mill Creek Products under an agreement that required the lessee to purchase all vehicles upon 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 Election Of Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
The document in this case is identical to that construed in Transport Rental Systems, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 129 So.2d 454 (Fla.App.1954), except that in this case paragraph 16 reads as follows:
“Lessee acknowledges that all vehicles leased under this Agreement have been acquired especially for Lessee’s exclusive use; therefore, in the event of cancellation of this Agreement, Lessee agrees to purchase all vehicles leased hereunder in accordance with all the provisions set forth in Paragraphs # 18 and # 19.”
The Court below held that the instrument was a conditional sale and not a lease and that when the appellant repossessed the vehicles after appellee’s default in payment for more than three months it made an election of remedies which thereafter precluded its recovery of unpaid “rental” charges. This decision was correct. An arrangement which can be terminated only by the end of the world or the purchase of the property cannot be called a lease. The case being governed by the law in effect prior to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code, the appellant’s election is binding. Voges v. Ward, 98 Fla. 304, 123 So. 785 (1929).
One count of the amended complaint alleges that the appellee was unjustly enriched because of its exclusive use of the vehicles for the period for which the agreement was in default, because of expenses incurred by the appellant in “keeping subject vehicles in operational condition”, including maintenance and repairs, tires, fuel, oil, license and insurance expenses, and because appellant “incurred and paid approximately $69,000.00 for maintenance, fuel and other miscellaneous expenses.” This is an inartistic allegation of unjust enrichment. It views the matter from the standpoint of appellant’s expenditures under the agreement, rather than from that of the appellee’s receipt unjustly of that for which it has not paid and ought to pay. We believe that the appellant ought to be allowed to prove unjust enrichment to the extent that it has incurred expense for the operation, as distinguished from the maintenance, of these vehicles. The expense of maintaining the vehicles benefits the conditional vendor who retook possession. This cannot be said of those expenses incurred by appellant which relate solely to operation. Thus a portion of the $69,000.00 appellant alleges it spent for maintenance, fuel and other miscellaneous expenses would fall into this category. The inclusion in the allegation of maintenance, repairs and other expenses incurred in the preservation of the retaken property along with fuel should not preclude proof of unjust enrichment to the extent that purely operational expense was incurred. See Peer v. Willson, 210 So.2d 495 (Fla.App.1968).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bartke's, Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 217 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…ment. There was no right to an extension, since the terms were left open to agreement, and the substance, not the style, of a document determines its nature. See National City Truck Rental Co. v. Southern Mill Creek Products Co., Inc., Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 261. Leibowitz v. Christo, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 692, and Kornblum v. Henry E. Mangels Co., Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 16, 10 A.L.R.3d 812, relied on by appellee, were simple renewals which rest on nothing more than options contained in the original leases.…
-
Encore, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. OF Am., 326 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1976)…ficiency, sue for the balance. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hurst, 212 So. 2d 335 (Fla.App.1st 1968); Swindel v. General Finance Corp., 265 So. 2d 393 (Fla.App.1st 1972); contra, Nat’l City Truck Rental Co. v. Southern Mill Creek Products Co., 213 So. 2d 261 (Fla.App.2d 1968) (the Court noted, however, that the case was governed by the law in effect prior to the adoption of the Code, hence Voges, supra, controlled, implying a different result under the Code.) The cases cited by petitioner are confluent…
Authorities Cited
- Voges v. Ward, 98 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1929)
- Transp. Rental Sys., Inc. v. HERTZ Corp., 129 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Peer v. Willson, 210 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)