DADE LINEN AND FURNITURE CO., D/B/A MONARCH CONTRACT INTERIORS, APPELLANT,
v.
BUCKLEY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., 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.
Dade Linen appeals from a judgment for breach of contract, challenging findings of anticipatory repudiation and the damages award. The court affirmed the trial court's findings, holding that both the repudiation and damages calculations were supported by competent evidence.
The trial court's findings of anticipatory repudiation and damages were fully supported by competent evidence and law. The appellate court will not upset findings of fact by a trial court when such findings are based on competent substantial evidence.
[1] A finding of anticipatory repudiation may be supported by evidence of a party's communication indicating potential problems with contract performance, even if the exact w…
[2] A party's attempt to 'cover' a contract at a reasonable price for comparable goods after the other party's anticipatory repudiation can be a basis for calculating damages…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In July or August, 1968, Dade Linen advised Buckley that there might be some problems in Dade Linen's performing its contract.”
Establishes the factual basis for the trial court's finding of anticipatory repudiation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuckley Development Co. contracted with Dade Linen on March 13, 1968, for carpeting for a new condominium. In July or August 1968, Dade Linen communic…
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 Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a consolidated appeal from a “final judgment” and a “final judgment as to costs and attorney’s fees” in the same non-jury trial.
Appellee-plaintiff Buckley Development Co., Ltd. (“Buckley”) sued appellant-defendant Dade Linen and Furniture Co., d/b/a Monarch Contract Interiors (“Dade Linen”) for breach of a contract to furnish carpeting for Buckley’s new condominium. The contract was signed on March 13, 1968. In July or August, 1968, Dade Linen advised Buckley that there might be some problems in Dade Linen’s performing its contract. The exact words and substance of this communication were in conflict, but the trial court found an anticipatory repudiation. Late in August, 1968, Buckley wrote that he was terminating the instant contract for Dade Linen’s inability to perform, about three months before *563Dade Linen’s performance was due to commence.
Buckley characterizes subsequent communications as attempts to help Dade Linen fulfill the obligations. Dade Linen asserts these communications show premature termination.
After August, 1968, Buckley attempted to “cover” at a reasonable price for comparable carpeting, by contracting with The W. P. Simpson Co. Pursuant to such contract, ten of seventeen floors were carpeted.
The trial court permitted Buckley to introduce into evidence a paper captioned “Recap” to establish his damages. Dade Linen contends that because Buckley did not introduce substantiating checks or invoices to show the actual cost of the carpeting, Buckley failed to prove how much it paid. Buckley insists that the “Recap” shows that the entire building’s carpeting, less certain common areas, cost more than $7,000 more than the original Buckley-Dade Linen contract.
Dade Linen’s points on appeal are: (1) that the trial court’s finding that the defendant Dade Linen repudiated its contract was not supported by sufficient competent evidence; (2) that the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff was not supported by sufficient competent evidence of actual damages sustained.
We have carefully examined and considered the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the trial court’s findings and holdings complained of are fully supported in law and fact and that no reversible error has been demonstrated. See Safe-T-Lawn, Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Association, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 25, 26-27. We note also that a reviewing court will not upset findings of fact by the trial court sitting as the finder of the facts where such findings are based upon competent substantial evidence.
Therefore, the “final judgment” and the “final judgment as to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees” are affirmed.
Affirmed.