ROLLINS SERVICES, A DIVISION OF ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Rollins Services appealed a trial court judgment upholding Metropolitan Dade County's right to unilaterally terminate a janitorial services contract at Miami International Airport. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the contract's express termination clause was valid and that Rollins' allegations of illegality and constitutional violations were unsupported by evidence.
The court held that the contract's express termination clause was valid and enforceable, and that Metropolitan Dade County lawfully exercised its reserved contractual right. The court further held that Rollins' allegations of illegality, constitutional violation, and discriminatory conduct were completely unsupported by evidence.
[1] A contract provision expressly reserving the right to terminate an agreement is generally recognized and enforceable.
[2] A municipality may revoke a contract when it has expressly reserved such a right within the contract terms.
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“The court below considered the evidence and admitted depositions and held that the charges and accusations were not supported by the evidence. Our review and consideration of the record leave no room to doubt or question the trial court's finding in this regard. Indeed, the record is totally devoid of any evidence tending to support appellant's injudicious accusations of wrongdoing by appellees.”
Establishes that the appellate court found no evidentiary support for Rollins' claims of illegality and constitutional violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRollins Services held a contract to provide janitorial services at Miami International Airport for Metropolitan Dade County. The contract contained an…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s judgment which upheld the appel-lee’s right to unilaterally terminate a contract under which appellant rendered janitorial services at Miami International Airport.
The second amended complaint filed by appellant alleged numerous and diverse claims of illegality on appellee’s part including an unalwful conspiracy, violation of the right to work provision of the State Constitution, Article I, Section 6, F.S.A. Appellees’ decision to terminate the contract was characterized, inter alia, as arbitrary, capricious, unjust, unfair and discriminatory.
The court below considered the evidence and admitted depositions and held that the charges and accusations were not supported by the evidence. Our review and consideration of the record leave no room to doubt or question the trial court’s finding in this regard. Indeed, the record is totally devoid of any evidence tending to support appellant’s injudicious accusations of wrongdoing by appellees.
The contract entered into by the parties expressly reserved unto appellees the right to do what it elected to do in the following language:
“The Authority may at its option and discretion, terminate the Contract at any time, without any default on the part of the Contractor, by giving a written notice to the Contractor and his Surety at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the termination set forth in the notice.”
Contract provisions reserving the right to terminate an agreement are generally recognized by the authorities. The prevailing rule is stated by McQuillan as follows :
“Even though not expressly authorized by statute, the power to terminate a contract may be reserved, and obviously a city may revoke a contract when it has reserved such a right.” McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Section 29.120.
The validity of a contract clause which provides for unilateral termination of the contractual relationship has been approved in this jurisdiction. Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413, and City Market Building v. Giglio, 157 Fla. 760, 26 So.2d 785.
The trial court’s ruling that appellees’ action in terminating the contract in question was a valid and lawful exercise of a contractual right which it had specifically reserved is fully supported by both the law and the evidence adduced by the parties.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Albert v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 874 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D. Fla. 1994)
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1938)
- City Mkt. Bldg., Inc. v. Giglio, 157 Fla. 760 (Fla. 1946)