Cast-Crete Corp. of Florida v. David Boland, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cast-Crete Corp. of Florida v. David Boland, Inc.

523 So. 2d 1183, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1072, 1988 WL 22252

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1988

DocketNos. 87-685, 87-1062

StatusPublished

This text of 523 So. 2d 1183 (Cast-Crete Corp. of Florida v. David Boland, Inc.) 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

Cast-Crete Corp. of Florida v. David Boland, Inc., 523 So. 2d 1183, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1072, 1988 WL 22252 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant subcontractor appeals from a judgment for damages in favor of the general contractor in the general contractor’s suit against the subcontractor for inadequate work. We affirm.

As to defendant’s first point on appeal, we do not conclude that there was error in construing the contract as not requiring the condition precedent which defendant contends was required.

As to defendant’s second point on appeal, we conclude that we are being asked to reweigh sufficient evidence which we are not entitled to do. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

As to the point on cross-appeal, we also affirm. We do not conclude that there was error in the exclusion of certain proffered evidence.

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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