H.R.J. Bar-B-Q, Inc. v. Shapiro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

H.R.J. Bar-B-Q, Inc. v. Shapiro

463 So. 2d 403, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 304, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1029

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 403 (H.R.J. Bar-B-Q, Inc. v. Shapiro) 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

H.R.J. Bar-B-Q, Inc. v. Shapiro, 463 So. 2d 403, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 304, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the evidence supports the jury verdict as to both liability and damages, see Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 32 (Fla.1976), and that evidence of an offer made to the plaintiff when he was “fired” by one of the defendants was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983)¹ because there was then, within the meaning of the statute, no existing “claim which was disputed as to validity or amount.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Winnemore, 413 F.2d 858, 863 (5th Cir. 1969); Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Lee, 368 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1979); Frank v. Ru-witch, 318 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 725 (Fla.1976); McCormick on Evidence § 274 nn. 76-77 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1061 n. 1 (Chadbourn rev. 1972) (“We deal here with an offer to pay or settle after a controversy has arisen between the parties. Offers to pay or settle prior to controversy are distinguishable.” [e.o.]); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 285 (1964) (“[T]here must be a controversy between the parties at the time of the alleged offer, for if there is no controversy there is nothing to compromise.”). The other points do not present error or require discussion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the evidence supports the jury verdict as to both liability and damages, see Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 32 (Fla.1976), and that evidence of an offer made to the plaintiff when he was “fired” by one of the defendants was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983)¹ because there was then, within the meaning of the statute, no existing “claim which was disputed as to validity or amount.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Winnemore, 413 F.2d 858, 863 (5th Cir. 1969); Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Lee, 368 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1979); Frank v. Ru-witch, 318 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 725 (Fla.1976); McCormick on Evidence § 274 nn. 76-77 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1061 n. 1 (Chadbourn rev. 1972) (“We deal here with an offer to pay or settle after a controversy has arisen between the parties. Offers to pay or settle prior to controversy are distinguishable.” [e.o.]); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 285 (1964) (“[T]here must be a controversy between the parties at the time of the alleged offer, for if there is no controversy there is nothing to compromise.”). The other points do not present error or require discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 403, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 304, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hrj-bar-b-q-inc-v-shapiro-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack