Lamitu Corp. v. Stottler Stagg & Associates, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lamitu Corp. v. Stottler Stagg & Associates, Inc.

505 So. 2d 626, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7739

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2253

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 626 (Lamitu Corp. v. Stottler Stagg & Associates, 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

Lamitu Corp. v. Stottler Stagg & Associates, Inc., 505 So. 2d 626, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7739 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant [technically the counterdefendant] from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff [technically the counter-plaintiff] sought to recover for architectural services performed for the defendant. The sole point on appeal is that the plaintiff failed to establish an alleged condition precedent in order to recover on the oral modification agreement sued upon, to wit: the actual construction of the defendant’s house, which construction the defendant in fact cancelled after the architectural plans were drawn.

We find no merit in this point and affirm because the construction of the house was not a condition precedent for payment under the contract, but was merely the time set for payments thereunder. Because the defendant prevented that time from arriving by cancelling the plans to build the house, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for services rendered pursuant to the contract. See Peacock Constr. Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So.2d 840, 842 (Fla.1977); Poinsettia Dairy Prods., Inc. v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306 (1936); Sharp v. Machry, 488 So.2d 133, 135-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So.2d 795, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant [technically the counterdefendant] from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff [technically the counter-plaintiff] sought to recover for architectural services performed for the defendant. The sole point on appeal is that the plaintiff failed to establish an alleged condition precedent in order to recover on the oral modification agreement sued upon, to wit: the actual construction of the defendant’s house, which construction the defendant in fact cancelled after the architectural plans were drawn.

We find no merit in this point and affirm because the construction of the house was not a condition precedent for payment under the contract, but was merely the time set for payments thereunder. Because the defendant prevented that time from arriving by cancelling the plans to build the house, the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for services rendered pursuant to the contract. See Peacock Constr. Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So.2d 840, 842 (Fla.1977); Poinsettia Dairy Prods., Inc. v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306 (1936); Sharp v. Machry, 488 So.2d 133, 135-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So.2d 795, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 626, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamitu-corp-v-stottler-stagg-associates-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack