In re the Government Complex Case

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re the Government Complex Case

543 So. 2d 866, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1280, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2920, 1989 WL 53348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0024

StatusPublished

This text of 543 So. 2d 866 (In re the Government Complex Case) 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

In re the Government Complex Case, 543 So. 2d 866, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1280, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2920, 1989 WL 53348 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

GUNTHER, Judge.

We agree with the appellant's assertion that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to determine whether appellee Shar-sand was a third party beneficiary under the Wilson trade agreement contract. Contract construction is a matter of law to be determined by the court. City of Orlando [867]*867v. H.L. Coble Construction Co., 282 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 288 So.2d 505 (Fla.1973). Since the contract clearly limits third party liability status to “contractors,” a defined term under the contract which Sharsand, as a subcontractor, does not meet, the trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that Shar-sand was not a third party beneficiary to the contract. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding Sharsand $90,250.00, plus interest. In all other respects we affirm the final judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

GUNTHER, Judge.

We agree with the appellant's assertion that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to determine whether appellee Shar-sand was a third party beneficiary under the Wilson trade agreement contract. Contract construction is a matter of law to be determined by the court. City of Orlando [867]*867v. H.L. Coble Construction Co., 282 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 288 So.2d 505 (Fla.1973). Since the contract clearly limits third party liability status to “contractors,” a defined term under the contract which Sharsand, as a subcontractor, does not meet, the trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that Shar-sand was not a third party beneficiary to the contract. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding Sharsand $90,250.00, plus interest. In all other respects we affirm the final judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 866, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1280, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2920, 1989 WL 53348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-government-complex-case-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack