Opinion
No. 71-199.
November 30, 1971.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Arthur E. Huttoe, Judge.
Howard R. Hirsch, for appellant.
Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller Flynn, Miami, for appellee.
Before SWANN, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
Affirmed.
A dissent to a per curiam affirmance is a singularly unproductive act. Nevertheless, my opinion that this appeal is governed by the rule stated in Mills v. Krauss, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 817 is so strong that I feel it should be noted. The rule is stated:
"The rule is clear beyond argument that one who undertakes by contract to do for another a given thing cannot excuse himself to the other for a faulty performance, or a failure to perform, by showing that he has engaged another to perform in his place, and that the fault or failure is that of another or independent contractor."