STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LEECON, INC., AND CRAGGS AND PHELAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AS JOINT VENTURERS, 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.
The Florida Department of Transportation appealed an interlocutory summary judgment finding it liable for breach of warranty in highway construction specifications. The court affirmed that the Department warranted the availability of suitable muck for shoulder dressing and that a subsequent supplemental agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction relieving the Department of liability for its breach.
The trial court correctly ruled that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the Department's liability and that the Department's defense of accord and satisfaction fails as a matter of law. The supplemental agreement was not an accord and satisfaction of the Department's liability for breach of warranty.
[1] A supplemental agreement modifying a construction contract does not constitute an accord and satisfaction of a prior breach of warranty if the parties did not intend to r…
[2] A breach of warranty regarding the availability of specified materials in a construction contract can lead to liability for additional expenses incurred by the contractor…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Department of Transportation, pursuant to Rule 4.2, F.A.R., presents this interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment on liability entered against it by the trial court.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case as an interlocutory appeal from summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Transportation contracted with Leecon to build a highway segment. The Department's specifications warranted that a particular quanti…
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 Supplemental Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The Department of Transportation, pursuant to Rule 4.2, F.A.R., presents this interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment on liability entered against it by the trial court. The court thereby held the Department liable to Leecon for the latter’s additional expenses incurred as a result of breach of the Department’s warranty, in specifications under which Leecon contracted to build a highway segment, that a particular quantity of muck suitable for dressing the shoulders and slopes of the highway was available where designated in the right-of-way. Much of that material contained roots and was unsuitable.
The trial court correctly ruled that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the Department’s liability and that the Department’s defense of accord and satisfaction fails as a matter of law. After the inadequacy of the muck deposits was discovered in the course of construction, the parties entered into a “supplemental agreement” permitting utilization of topsoil or muck for dressing and reducing the total quantity. No change was made in the compensation per square yard to be paid Leecon for material in place. We agree that the supplemental agreement was not an accord and satisfaction of the Department’s liability for breach of the warranty in its specifications. State Road Dept. v. Houdaille Ind., Inc., 237 So. 2d 270 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970).
While we have some concern whether the Department’s warranty survived execution of the supplemental agreement and whether the risk of the unavailability thereafter of suitable muck and topsoil should fall entirely on the Department, those issues pertain to Leecon’s damages, not to the Department’s liability, and they are more appropriately determined by the trial court upon consideration of all the facts.
Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Rd. Dep't v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 237 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)