From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1982
420 So. 2d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Summary

In Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner, 420 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the court held, "In order to maintain an action for breach of an oral contract a plaintiff must first establish performance on its part of the contractual obligations assumed."

Summary of this case from Specialized Trans. of Tampa Bay v. Nestle Waters N. A.

Opinion

No. 81-2589.

October 12, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Boyce F. Ezell, Jr., J.

Susan Minor, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Don G. Nicholson, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.


In order to maintain an action for breach of an oral contract a plaintiff must first establish performance on its part of the contractual obligations assumed. Babe, Inc. v. Baby's Formula Service, Inc., 165 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Where the defendant continually complained that the requested services were not being performed, the plaintiff may not recover upon a theory of account stated, Merrill-Stevens Dry Rock Co. v. Corniche Express, 400 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases collected therein.

The trial judge's finding that appellant failed to make a case on either theory is supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal. Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corp., 323 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1982
420 So. 2d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

In Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner, 420 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the court held, "In order to maintain an action for breach of an oral contract a plaintiff must first establish performance on its part of the contractual obligations assumed."

Summary of this case from Specialized Trans. of Tampa Bay v. Nestle Waters N. A.
Case details for

Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner

Case Details

Full title:THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. F.A. CONNER, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 12, 1982

Citations

420 So. 2d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Specialized Trans. of Tampa Bay v. Nestle Waters N. A.

Nestle also contends that Specialized presented insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that…

Cupeiro v. Baron

Our disposition of the cause makes it unnecessary to resolve the difficult question of whether the oral…