Benefit Of The Bargain

73 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• CASA Clara Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
  620 So. 2d 1244· Fla.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 197×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that homeowners cannot recover purely economic losses from a concrete supplier under a negligence theory, applying the economic loss rule to bar tort recovery when a product damages only itself without causing personal injury or damage to other prop
• In re Am. Mariner Indus., Inc. v. Am. Mariner Indus., Inc.
  734 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 101×
  An undersecured creditor stayed from repossessing collateral is entitled to compensation for the delay in enforcing its rights, ensuring it receives the value of its bargained-for interest.
• Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX
  943 So. 2d 823· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-10-26 ·cited 34×
  Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. appeals a judgment on the pleadings in favor of homeowners Eugene and Debra Cox for full policy limits ($65,000) under Florida's 2004 Valued Policy Law (VPL) following total loss of their home from Hurricane Ivan. The court affirms, hold
• Plaine v. B.C. McCABE
  790 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The issue of merger price fairness under state law is not identical to the issue of compensable injury under federal securities law section 14(e).
• Grundy Nat'l Bank v. Tandem Mining Corp.
  754 F.2d 1436· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a secured creditor is entitled to interest on periodic payments made for adequate protection during Chapter 11 proceedings, and that an order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final appealable order.
• Everett Plywood Corp. v. The United States
  512 F.2d 1082· Ct. Cl.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Forest Service's refusal to extend the timber sale contract based on an "extraordinary conditions" standard, rather than its established policy of granting extensions unless disadvantageous to the United States, constituted a breach of contract. The court
• In re Briggs Transp. Co. v. Briggs Transp. Co.
  780 F.2d 1339· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court has discretion to determine if adequate protection includes compensation for lost opportunity costs to an undersecured creditor.
• Madigan v. Goodman
  498 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that plaintiffs may be entitled to consequential damages, including capital contributions and broker's commission, if they can establish the causal nexus, but not for lost profits or expenses from unrelated litigation. Indemnity or contribution claims were not dism
• Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
  20 So. 3d 952· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-07 ·cited 19×
  Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. appealed the denial of its Rule 1.540(b) motion seeking to set aside a judgment in favor of Morgan Stanley. CPH alleged that Morgan Stanley committed fraud upon the court during discovery sanction hearings by misrepresenting when its in-house couns
• Rector v. Larson's Marine, Inc.
  479 So. 2d 783· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-11-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding only nominal damages for breach of contract when the proper measure of damages was the difference between the value of the boat if repaired and its salvage value, to avoid economic waste.
• Classic Bowl, Inc. v. A M F Pinspotters, Inc.
  403 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1968-11-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud in the inducement or breach of warranty due to insufficient evidence of misrepresentation and damages.
• Jarmco, Inc. v. Polygard, Inc.
  668 So. 2d 300· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-02-21 ·cited 18×
  JARMCO, a resin retailer, appeals summary judgment dismissing its fraud and negligence claims against Polygard, a distributor, arising from allegedly defective resin. The court holds that the economic loss rule does not bar common law fraud in the inducement claims seeking only e
• United States ex rel. Arthur Decar Ferris v. Finkbeiner
  551 F.2d 185· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-23 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a defendant is substantially prejudiced and his due process rights are violated when a state court affirmatively misinforms him about a mandatory parole term, thus breaching a plea agreement.
• Fortini v. State
  472 So. 2d 1383· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-31 ·cited 16×
  Fortini appeals his conviction under a plea bargain after law enforcement officers recommended maximum sentences in the pre-sentence investigation and at sentencing, contrary to the state's agreement to recommend five years. The court reverses, holding that even though the office
• Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Gen. Prods. Corp. & John A. Hubly
  643 F.2d 413· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to award contract interest to the plaintiff, as the defendant, found to be the alter ego of the corporation, is liable for the full corporate obligation, including interest, despite the contractual rate exceeding Ohio's ind
• Citibank, N.A. v. Judien J. Studley, Inc.
  580 So. 2d 784· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while liability for a brokerage commission was established, the trial court erred in calculating the damages based on a standard 6% commission.
• Trans World Metals, Inc. v. Southwire Co.
  769 F.2d 902· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the seller's late delivery did not substantially impair the contract's value, and the buyer's repudiation constituted a breach, entitling the seller to damages based on the contract/market price differential.
• Kneale v. JAY BEN Inc.
  527 So. 2d 917· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-06-28 ·cited 13×
  Kneale purchased two chairs on sale for $97.50 each but the store failed to deliver them despite receiving full payment. The trial court awarded only the return of the purchase price plus interest, but Florida law requires awarding the 'benefit of the bargain'—the difference betw
• United States v. McDOWELL Contractors, Inc.
  668 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court has jurisdiction to consider whether the district court had the authority to modify a plea agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(C), even if the issue was not raised below.
• Markowitz & Co. v. Toledo Metro. Hous. Auth.
  608 F.2d 699· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that TMHA breached its lease and sale agreements with Markowitz, and that the damages awarded were proper.
• Nager Elec. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  442 F.2d 936· Ct. Cl.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the administrative determination of the credit due to the Government for deleted valves was incorrect because it failed to consider the contractor's actual and probable costs and the benefit of its bargain with its subcontractor.
• Whitaker v. State
  881 So. 2d 80· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-08-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a trial court cannot partially grant a motion to withdraw a plea when the plea was part of a single negotiated plea agreement covering multiple cases.
• Naywin Maung v. Nat'l Stamping, LLC
  842 So. 2d 214· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the civil worthless check statute claim because the plaintiff failed to establish an intent to defraud and did not negate the defendant's affirmative defense of receiving counterfeit merchandise.
• Bebchick v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n
  645 F.2d 1086· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the starting point for determining appreciation in value of transferred properties to offset a depreciation deficiency must be book value, not market value at acquisition. It also ruled on the calculation of taxes, the accrual of interest on restitution, the a
• State v. Dereece Timika Howell
  59 So. 3d 301· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-04-15 ·cited 8×
  Florida appellate court reversed trial court's modification of a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, holding that trial courts lack discretion to unilaterally modify sentences that were negotiated as part of a binding plea agreement.
• Levin v. Ira Lang
  994 So. 2d 445· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that sellers cannot recover damages against a lis pendens bond when the property's value appreciated during the lis pendens period, exceeding any provable losses.
• Tunis Bros. Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  952 F.2d 715· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that Ford tractors alone constituted the relevant product market for antitrust purposes, thus reversing the jury's verdict on the antitrust claim.
• Westric Battery Co. v. Standard Elec. Co., Inc.
  482 F.2d 1307· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while negligence and breach of warranty claims were properly submitted, the strict liability theory as applied to business losses was not prejudicial. However, certain damage elements, specifically impairment of capital and speculative future profits, were imp
• In re Tampa BAY Assocs., Ltd. v. DRW Worthington, Ltd.
  864 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 7×
  A nonrecourse creditor's foreclosure on collateral during bankruptcy proceedings is treated as a sale, thus waiving the right to a recourse unsecured deficiency claim under Section 1111(b).
• W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Park
  933 F.2d 1236· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 6×
  An insurer is estopped from challenging the legality of its own policy, even if it allegedly violates a statute, when the insured had a reasonable expectation of coverage based on the policy's terms and premiums paid.
• Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp. Appeal of NCR Corp.
  670 F.2d 1304· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The district court erred in its calculation of damages for breach of warranty by relying on speculative expert testimony regarding the fair market value of a hypothetical computer system rather than the value of the goods as warranted. The contract price should serve as prima fac
• Mori v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. OF Am.
  380 So. 2d 461· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-29 ·cited 6×
  Mori, a commercial developer, sued Matsushita Electric (Panasonic) for breach of a warehouse construction and lease agreement after Panasonic repudiated the contract in April 1973. The court awarded Mori damages based on lost profits from the anticipatory breach, but the appellat
• United States v. Systron-Donner Corp.
  486 F.2d 249· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party cannot recover payments made under a negotiated fixed-price contract due to the other party's unilateral mistake in calculating its bid, as this does not constitute unjust enrichment.
• State v. Russo
  415 So. 2d 108· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-06-15 ·cited 5×
  Florida sought to overturn a trial court's vacation of a defendant's attempted robbery conviction and consecutive 30-year sentence that resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that consecutive sentences imposed pursuant to a plea bargain c
• Gastaldi v. Sunvest Resort Cmtys., LC
  709 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2010-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the expert's damages model was inadmissible because it failed to account for market decline and lacked a reliable methodology, potentially creating a windfall for the plaintiffs.
• Weigert v. Trade Wind Ventures, Inc.
  667 So. 2d 913· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-02-07 ·cited 4×
  John Weigert appeals from a judgment denying his breach of contract claim for the sale of a vessel. The court reverses, finding clear and unambiguous breach by Trade Wind Ventures and its principal Gary Braverman, and awards Weigert damages for the benefit of his bargain plus ret
• Superbird Farms v. Perdue Farms
  970 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the contract ambiguous, allowing extrinsic evidence, and instructing the jury on breach of contract, nor did it err in its handling of the damage award.
• Cote v. Chesley
  577 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a vendor who resells land for the contract price cannot recover interest on the unpaid purchase price for the period between the breach and resale, as the vendor retains the benefit of the land during that time.
• Sanders v. Hiser
  479 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, as the proofs demonstrated to a legal certainty that they were never entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.
• Fine v. State
  728 So. 2d 307· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-02-19 ·cited 3×
  Jay Fine appeals his resentencing for three robbery convictions after his initial 20-year concurrent sentences were found to exceed the statutory maximum and remanded. The court holds that Fine is entitled to the benefit of his plea bargain requiring concurrent sentences, not the
• Doe v. Sch. Bd. for Santa Rosa Cnty.
  711 F. Supp. 2d 1320· N.D. Fla.· 2010-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court retains ancillary enforcement jurisdiction over the consent decree, as the graduation of named plaintiffs does not render the case moot because the decree is a final judgment and the court expressly retained jurisdiction.
• ALL Am. Semi Conductor, Inc. v. Mil-Pro Servs., Inc.
  686 So. 2d 760· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-01-17 ·cited 2×
  All American Semiconductor contracted with Mil-Pro to program its microchips using equipment manufactured by Bytek. When the microchips were destroyed during the failed programming process, All American sued Bytek for negligence. The court held that the economic loss rule bars ne
• Harborside Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Vogel
  959 F.2d 368· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the buyer's complaint, finding the buyer's delay reasonable and entitled to the original contract terms.
• Clayton Ctr. Assocs. v. Schindler Haughton Elevator Corp.
  731 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of damages to allow the case to go to the jury.
• The Upjohn Co. v. Rachelle Labs., Inc.
  661 F.2d 1105· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a contributory negligence instruction for breach of implied warranty and that the damages awarded were supported by sufficient evidence.
• Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc.
  318 F.2d 73· 6th Cir.· 1963-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the measure of damages for missed station identification announcements under the lease was not the value of advertising to others, but the agreed-upon cash rental formula, and that the jury's award was excessive.
• Celsius Holdings, Inc. v. D3M Licensing Grp., LLC
  402 So. 3d 1040· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-12-11 ·cited 1×
  Celsius Holdings appeals a jury verdict finding breach of contract in an endorsement deal with musician Flo Rida, challenging the trial court's allowance of damages measured by stock valuation at trial rather than at the date of breach. The appellate court agrees on the damages m
• Good v. State
  200 So. 3d 185· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-07-01 ·cited 1×
  Harry Lee Good appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850(b)(1) motion for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence (victim's recantation). The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court summarily denied the motion without adequately refutin
• Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc.
  490 F. Supp. 2d 1228· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-29 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Pfizer's motion to dismiss, allowing claims based on pre-July 2004 advertising but dismissing claims based on post-July 2004 advertising and all unjust enrichment claims.
• Blackstone Power & Natural Res. Holdco L.P. v. Nextera Energy Transmission Invs., LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2026-01-29
  Blackstone sought declaratory judgment and breach of contract damages against NextEra regarding earn-out payments under a purchase and sale agreement for electric infrastructure assets. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that