Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co.

423 So. 2d 460, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1982

DocketNo. AI-411

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 460 (Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co.) 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

Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co., 423 So. 2d 460, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Chitty & Company appeals a judgment of $40,000 entered in its favor following a bench trial on its counterclaim to Haskell’s contract action. We affirm.

The parties agree that Grossman Holdings v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982), establishes the proper measure of [461]*461damages. The evidence supports findings that: (1) the nonconforming warehouse constructed by Haskell could not be made economically conforming; (2) the building as constructed is worth in the real estate market $50,000 less than contracted for; and (3) the building is in substantial compliance, and in fact is in use, entitling Haskell to the unpaid contract price.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case involving conflicting experts by refusing to allow Chitty to expand the issues on the day of trial. International Patrol v. Aetna Casualty, 396 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Brown v. Montgomery Ward, 252 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow a property appraiser to offer opinions on methods of cure. This was clearly outside the area of his expertise.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.

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