Implied In Fact Contract

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

• The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. The United States
  490 F.2d 960· Ct. Cl.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 14×
  A surety company that voluntarily pays a contractor's taxes to prevent project shutdowns, even under pressure from the IRS, cannot claim duress to recover those payments, as the IRS was merely stating its legal rights.
• C. F. Harms Co. v. Erie R. Co.
  167 F.2d 562· 2d Cir.· 1948-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The United States, as a bailee in control of a chartered scow, had a duty of care to protect it from foreseeable harm, and its failure to do so rendered it liable for damages.
• 14TH & Heinberg, LLC v. Terhaar & Cronley Gen. Contractors, Inc.
  43 So. 3d 877· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-09-07 ·cited 13×
  In this unjust enrichment case, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to limit damages to the unpaid contract balance rather than the enhanced property value. The court held that because Terhaar, the contractor, contracted with Montgomery Ward (no
• Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc.
  814 So. 2d 522· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-04-24 ·cited 13×
  The Sheriff of Broward County sought to recover damages for costs incurred due to delays in constructing a detention center, claiming he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the construction contract between the County and Church & Tower. The court held that the Sheriff was
• Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co.
  831 F.2d 898· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no substantial similarity of protectable expression for copyright claims, and the state law claims failed due to lack of evidence of an implied contract or breach of confidence.
• In re Elcona Homes Corp.
  863 F.2d 483· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge argued that the lower court had already determined the existence of a mutual obligation based on industry practice and the parties' conduct, making a remand unnecessary.
• Lauro T. Ysasi v. Rivkind
  856 F.2d 1520· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the FTCA's exception for detention of goods by law enforcement officers bars claims arising from Border Patrol seizures, and that no implied-in-fact bailment contract existed under the Tucker Act. However, genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judg
• Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  844 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 12×
  Texas law does not permit recovery in tort for economic loss to the product itself, and contractual disclaimers of warranty and limitations of remedy were valid.
• City OF Alexandria v. The United States
  737 F.2d 1022· Fed. Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the "report and wait" provision of 40 U.S.C. § 484(e)(6) is constitutional, and therefore the City's claims for breach of express or implied contract and estoppel fail because statutory prerequisites were not met. The claim is also noncontractual under the Tuc
• Augusta Aviation, Inc. v. United States
  671 F.2d 445· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-22 ·cited 12×
  An implied-in-fact contract to pay for educational benefits exceeding statutory limits is void for lack of statutory authorization, even if the elements of contract formation are met.
• Tree Farm Dev. Corp. v. The United States
  585 F.2d 493· Ct. Cl.· 1978-10-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's submission of an application for a federal loan guarantee, even with payment of a fee, did not constitute an implied-in-fact contract with the government, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.
• Roebling v. Anderson
  257 F.2d 615· D.C. Cir.· 1958-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court improvidently limited discovery to only the express contract theory, affecting substantial rights, and that certain defenses raised by the RFC were fact-dependent and should be determined after further discovery.
• W. Constr., Inc. v. Fla. Blacktop, Inc.
  88 So. 3d 301· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-25 ·cited 11×
  West Construction used Florida Blacktop's asphalt paving bid to secure a general contract with the Village of Royal Palm Beach, then hired a different subcontractor to perform the work. The court reversed the jury verdict for Blacktop, holding that mere use of a subcontractor's b
• White Constr. Co. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
  633 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted in part and denied in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding certain claims.
• CDS & Assocs. OF the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. 1711 Donna Rd. Assocs., Inc.
  743 So. 2d 1223· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-11-17 ·cited 11×
  A construction lien cannot be based on a contract implied in law (quasi-contract).
• Global Network Mgmt., Ltd. v. CenturyLink Latin Am. Solutions, LLC
  67 F.4th 1312· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the implied bailment claim was plausibly alleged, but the claims for breach of contract implied in law and breach of contract implied in fact were properly dismissed.
• The Operis Grp. v. E.I. AT Doral, LLC
  973 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-24 ·cited 10×
  Operis Group appeals a trial court order granting a stay of litigation and compelling arbitration based on an alleged contract. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court must first determine whether the parties actually executed the disputed contract before enfor
• Posely v. Eckerd Corp.
  433 F. Supp. 2d 1287· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs, as store managers, were bona fide executives exempt from FLSA overtime pay because their primary duty was management, even though they performed some manual tasks.
• Zalay v. ACE Cabinets OF Clearwater, Inc.
  700 So. 2d 15· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The Zalays appealed a judgment allowing construction liens exceeding $100,000 against their home, even though the unpaid balance on their construction contract was only $45,267. The court affirmed, holding that attorneys' fees and costs incurred by lienors in foreclosure actions
• Hamlet v. The United States
  873 F.2d 1414· Fed. Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 10×
  The Claims Court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for constitutional violations, breach of contract, and regulatory non-compliance, and the case is remanded for further consideration.
• Bembenista v. United States
  866 F.2d 493· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar a claim for breach of a hospital's duty of protective care to a patient, but affirmed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim for failure to properly present it to the agency.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. Appeal of United States
  831 F.2d 1221· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing Penn Central to retain Section 215 funds not spent in strict accordance with the contractual terms, as the statute and agreements required adherence to specific terms and conditions.
• Zucker v. The United States
  758 F.2d 637· Fed. Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 10×
  A retiree does not have a constitutionally protected right to receive cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) based on the formula in effect at the time of retirement, as such future benefits are subject to lawful statutory changes.
• Lirtzman v. Fuqua Indus., Inc.
  677 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an implied contract and whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the transaction, which should not have been resolved by summary judgment.
• Gordon v. The United States
  649 F.2d 837· Ct. Cl.· 1981-05-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 9-month statute of limitations under section 110(a) applies to Tucker Act suits challenging tax levies, making the plaintiff's petition untimely.
• Ehrman v. Cook Elec. Co. & N. Telecom Ltd.
  630 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create jury questions on the existence of an implied agreement for a finder's fee and whether he was the procuring cause of the merger, and also on the issue of damages.
• Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. v. The United States
  597 F.2d 1371· Ct. Cl.· 1979-05-16 ·cited 10×
  A bid that deviates substantially from the invitation's essential requirements regarding price, quantity, or quality is nonresponsive, rendering any resulting contract void ab initio and precluding recovery for breach or quantum meruit.
• Kabua Kabua v. The United States
  546 F.2d 381· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for an uncompensated taking and implied-in-fact contract were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
• Waldemar P. Thomson v. The United States
  357 F.2d 683· Ct. Cl.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the United States Attorney's conduct, coupled with Department of Justice authorization, constituted an implied acceptance and direction to proceed, forming a binding contract for appraisal services.
• W. Mach. Co. v. Consol. Uranium Mines, Inc.
  247 F.2d 685· 10th Cir.· 1957-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the appellant's procedural objections to jury instructions were invalid.
• Hill v. Waxberg
  237 F.2d 936· 9th Cir.· 1956-10-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding damages, potentially allowing a commingling of theories for implied-in-fact and implied-in-law contracts, leading to an excessive verdict.
• Smith v. Mariner's BAY Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  789 So. 2d 1228· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-07-25 ·cited 9×
  A condominium association's statutory duty to manage and maintain property does not create a contractual obligation for security services, precluding it from being a statutory employer immune from civil liability.
• Rosner v. United States
  231 F. Supp. 2d 1202· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that equitable tolling applies to the plaintiffs' claims, making them timely, and that the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for non-monetary relief regarding the international law claim, but the Fifth Amendment claim fails due to extraterritor
• Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States
  823 F.2d 260· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 8×
• Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc.
  802 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly found an implied-in-fact contract and awarded damages, but modified the damage award, punitive damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest.
• The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. The United States
  801 F.2d 1295· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court is constrained by precedent to affirm the prior decision, despite reservations about the fairness of the outcome for the plaintiff.
• Newfield House, Inc. v. Mass. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  651 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state was contractually obligated to pay for the care of Medicaid residents at the prior Medicaid rate after the nursing home voluntarily withdrew from the program, until the patients were relocated.
• Somerville Tech. Servs. v. The United States
  640 F.2d 1276· Ct. Cl.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the United States, acting in a sovereign capacity through the FHA, is not liable to the plaintiff contractor for the unpaid balance of a construction contract or a subsequent conditional note, as there was no privity of contract and no express or implied agree
• Radioptics, Inc. v. The United States
  621 F.2d 1113· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a contractual relationship or a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment, thus dismissing the petition.
• Kirk v. United States
  451 F.2d 690· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that property damage from high-altitude sonic boom tests does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking and that no express or implied contract existed for compensation under the Tucker Act.
• Carrier Corp. v. The United States
  328 F.2d 328· Ct. Cl.· 1964-02-14 ·cited 8×
• Mfrs. Tr. Co. v. Kennedy
  291 F.2d 460· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish beneficial ownership of the vested funds, as required by the Trading with the Enemy Act, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
• G. T. Fogle & Co. v. United States
  135 F.2d 117· 4th Cir.· 1943-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Government was not liable for breach of contract for failing to use rented equipment because the contracts only obligated payment for actual operating time and did not impose a duty to use the equipment.
• Bakers' Mut. Coop. Ass'n of Newark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  117 F.2d 27· 3d Cir.· 1941-01-07 ·cited 8×
  Payments made by the taxpayer to holders of 'certificates of deposit' are classified as dividends, not deductible interest.
• Sirpal v. Univ. of Miami
  684 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2010-01-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for violations of Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of contract for his Ph.D. program, and defamation regarding statements made to the University of Florida, but failed to sufficiently plead defamation regarding st
• Sotomayor v. Huntington Broward Assocs. L.P., Ltd.
  697 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-08-13 ·cited 7×
  A landlord who hired a security company to provide services at its office complex sought workers' compensation immunity from an injured security guard's negligence suit. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that the landlord was not a statutory employer because it had no
• Allied-General Nuclear Servs. v. The United States
  839 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the claimant had no legally protected property right to operate the plant that could be the subject of a Fifth Amendment taking, as the government's action was to prevent injury to national security.
• Silverman v. The United States
  679 F.2d 865· Ct. Cl.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a subcontractor cannot sue the government directly unless there is an express or implied-in-fact contract, and that in this case, while an implied-in-fact contract existed for some services, the plaintiff had been overpaid.
• Fincke v. The United States
  675 F.2d 289· Ct. Cl.· 1982-03-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the broker-of-record letter did not constitute an express or implied contract for the Embassy to pay a commission, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the quantum meruit claim.
• Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre
  517 F. Supp. 52· S.D. Fla.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that royalty obligations under a hybrid license agreement cannot extend beyond the expiration of the underlying patents if the agreement does not explicitly differentiate between patent and trade secret royalties.