Atlas Sewing Center, Inc. v. Belk's Department Store

162 So. 2d 274
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 1964
Docket2873
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 162 So. 2d 274 (Atlas Sewing Center, Inc. v. Belk's Department Store) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlas Sewing Center, Inc. v. Belk's Department Store, 162 So. 2d 274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

162 So.2d 274 (1964)

ATLAS SEWING CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, a/k/a Acme-Atlas Stores, a Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
BELK'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 2873.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 27, 1964.

William H. Morrow, Jr., of Patton & Kanner, Miami, for appellant.

B.F. Paty, Jr., of Paty, Downey & Lewis, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*275 SMITH, Chief Judge.

The appellee, as plaintiff in the court below, filed its complaint against the defendant-appellant, claiming that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff by virtue of a series of written agreements, copies of which were attached to the complaint as exhibits. The defendant's answer was, in effect, a general denial that it was indebted to the plaintiff. The trial court, sitting without a jury, determined that the agreements were ambiguous, heard the testimony of the parties in explanation of the ambiguity, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant contends on appeal that there is no ambiguity appearing within the terms of the agreements; that the unambiguous terms of the agreements are conclusive; and that, therefore, the lower court was not at liberty to modify the agreements by and through an interpretation based upon oral testimony of the parties. The principle of law is well settled that a court may not hear oral testimony in interpreting a contract which is clear and unambiguous. 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts, § 74. Also well settled is the principle that a contract is ambiguous only when it is of uncertain meaning and may fairly be understood in more ways than one. 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts, § 90. Our task is to apply these principles of law to the contract between the parties in the case at bar. We pause here to point out that we use the term "contract" because the several so-called "agreements" — although embodied in different writings — must be read together as constituting one contract. As will hereinafter be made to appear, the initial agreement was modified and amended in certain particulars by subsequent agreements, all of the terms of which were then incorporated by specific reference into the non-negotiable promissory notes (simple contracts) which were intended to evidence the indebtedness which forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim. See 12 Am.Jur. Contracts, §§ 405, 406; 11 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes, § 1.

The original agreement between the parties was a lease from Belk's to Atlas, the expressed object of which was to permit Atlas to operate a sewing machine and vacuum cleaner department within the department store operated by Belk's. The rental to be paid was computed on a certain percentage of net sales made by Atlas. The term "net sales" was defined as gross sales and service charges less adjustments and returned goods as approved by Belk's. As to non-cash sales, Belk's agreed to pass on all credits, guarantee all accounts passed upon and make all collections. Belk's was to pay Atlas in full for such charge items at the end of each month. Atlas was required to conduct its business under the name of Belk's, and the parties agreed that the "sales check system" covering case, C.O.D., charge sales and cash refunds as used by Belk's would be exclusively used by Atlas. It was further provided that all goods sold to, and all communications with, Atlas' customers would be in the name of Belk's.

Within six months the parties entered into a second agreement which was expressly added to and made a part of the first agreement. The second agreement provided in effect that Belk's would assign all time-payment sale contracts to Atlas as security for a loan which Atlas would make to Belk's in an amount equal to 75% of the balance remaining unpaid on the contracts; that Atlas would thereafter process credit applications and make collections, but that Belk's would have the authority to accept or decline any contracts for credit; and that, in the event of termination of the lease, Belk's had the option to either re-purchase the assigned accounts and liquidate their loan from Atlas or have Atlas continue to collect the accounts.

Finally, in the following year, the parties entered into an "Agreement and Amendment to Lease" providing as follows:

"ATLAS will purchase and remit payment within 5 days thereafter all of the sewing machine and vacuum cleaner contracts presently assigned to *276 ATLAS by BELK'S and ATLAS will finance and own all time sale contracts made by the ATLAS leased department in BELK'S in the future under the following terms and conditions:
"ATLAS will purchase the presently existing contracts from BELK'S at its present unpaid balance (less carrying charges). ATLAS will withhold $20,000.00 from this purchase price as a reserve fund, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, to be used to charge returns, adjustments, repossessions, etc., that occur after cancellation of the presently existing lease arrangements and during the period of liquidation of the contracts. Upon continuance of the existing lease arrangement, ATLAS will refund to BELK'S $5,000.00 on September 1, 1957, $5,000.00 on September 1, 1958 and $5,000.00 on September 1, 1959 — the remaining $5,000.00 to serve as a reserve for contingencies. (Contingencies will be the full loss resulting from sales returns, repossessions, uncollectible accounts, etc., during the period of liquidation of time sales contracts.)
"All future sales made by the ATLAS leased sewing machine and vacuum cleaner department will be written directly on ATLAS contracts and will remain the sole property of ATLAS.
"ATLAS will remit a monthly settlement and accounting of all net sales (net sales to be the amount after deducting all returns, carrying charges and/or adjustments) twenty (20) days after the close of each month. The basis of this monthly report will be from the summation of daily cash reports prepared by the ATLAS department and subject at all times to inspection or audit by BELK'S.
"All sales will be made on a contract directly with the customer as `Atlas Sewing Centers, Inc.' in BELK'S Department Store.
"Contract forms, credit statements, payment books and all collection work to properly service and collect the accounts will be supplied by ATLAS.
"In the event of cancellation of the Lease between ATLAS AND BELK'S, ATLAS will receive full cooperation from BELK'S in expediting the successful liquidation of these accounts. Any uncollectible accounts, returns, repossessions or adjustments during the period of liquidation will be charged against the reserve account. Upon completion of the liquidation, the balance remaining in the reserve fund will be remitted to BELK'S, (not to exceed one (1) year from date of cancellation).
"IN CONSIDERATION OF ATLAS financing the receivables, BELK'S will reduce ATLAS' monthly rental to ten (10%) per cent of total net annual sales under the same terms as provided in the original Lease between ATLAS and BELK'S dated June 30, 1955, and amended November 12, 1955.
"ATLAS SEWING CENTERS, INC. will have the right to assign or sublet this agreement to any of its subsidiaries without the prior consent of BELK'S Department Store.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Procter v. Le Val De Loire, Inc.
38 Fla. Supp. 2d 97 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1989)
Robert J. Shipner v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
868 F.2d 401 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. City of Miami
501 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
International Community Corp. v. Orange Entertainment Center, Inc.
490 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Monumental Life Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
435 So. 2d 975 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Amcoa, Inc. v. Lenoir Mirror Co.
428 So. 2d 291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Imperial Apartment Hotel, Inc. v. Aronson
213 So. 2d 610 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Osborn v. H. D. H., Inc.
192 So. 2d 22 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Rock-Weld Corp. of PR v. Rock-Weld Equip. Corp. of Fla.
184 So. 2d 186 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Continental Casualty Company v. Borthwick
177 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 So. 2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlas-sewing-center-inc-v-belks-department-store-fladistctapp-1964.