Florida Gas Co. v. Arkla Air Conditioning Co.

260 So. 2d 220, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 30, 1972
DocketNo. O-87
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 260 So. 2d 220 (Florida Gas Co. v. Arkla Air Conditioning 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
Florida Gas Co. v. Arkla Air Conditioning Co., 260 So. 2d 220, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Florida Gas Company, appeals from a final order dismissing its third amended third party complaint upon the grounds that same failed to state a cause of action.

Lockwood Marks, Inc. instituted this action against Florida Gas, alleging breach of contract in the design and installation of an air conditioning system in an apartment complex. Particular allegations by Lockwood are: the system continuously broke down; improper design; expansion couplings not installed; faulty thermostat; chiller units defective; and breaks in hose connections. An additional count alleging negligence on the part of Florida Gas is set out in the complaint.

Florida Gas sought to join Arkla Air Conditioning Company, the manufacturer of the air conditioning units, as a third party defendant by generally alleging that it had manufactured the equipment complained of and had assisted in the design of the system. No specific duty on the part of Arkla to Florida Gas is alleged. At most, it might be theorized that Florida Gas is seeking to recover from Arkla upon the doctrine of implied warranty. A cause of action for a third party complaint has not been stated.

The second point posed by Florida Gas is that the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting it one more opportunity to state a cause of action. “Three strikes are out” in a baseball game; Florida Gas has been at bat four times. Under the most liberal construction of our modern rules, we hold that ample opportunity has been proffered to appellant.

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Owens v. Ridley
870 So. 2d 886 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
McKinney-Green, Inc. v. Davis
606 So. 2d 393 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Small
457 So. 2d 521 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Alvarez v. DeAguirre
395 So. 2d 213 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Dann v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
296 So. 2d 606 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 So. 2d 220, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-gas-co-v-arkla-air-conditioning-co-fladistctapp-1972.