Mailman, Inc. v. Word Processing Center

3 Fla. Supp. 2d 122
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedOctober 5, 1983
DocketNo. 83-099-AP
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 122 (Mailman, Inc. v. Word Processing Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mailman, Inc. v. Word Processing Center, 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 122 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1983).

Opinion

This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff, Word Processing Center, Inc. (Word Processing) sued the Defendant, Multi-Marketing Group, Inc. (Multi-Marketing) for damages claiming Multi-Marketing failed to perform advertising services pursuant to a written contract. Multi-Marketing answered the complaint and filed a Third Party Complaint against The Mailman, Inc. (Mailman) for damages claiming Mailman breached its oral contract with Multi-Marketing to print and produce the advertising which was the subject of Multi-Marketing’s contract with Word Processing.

The case went to trial on January 13, 1983 and January 24, 1983. Final Judgment was rendered February 8, 1983 on the original complaint and the third party complaint. Final Judgment in the original action held Defendant Multi-Marketing responsible to Plaintiff Word Processing for $1,385.00 plus costs and interest. Final Judgment in the third party action held Third Party Defendant Mailman responsible to the Third Party Plaintiff Multi-Marketing for that which Multi-Marketing owed the Plaintiff Word Processing. The question of attorney’s fees were reserved. An Amended Final Judgment was then rendered on March 17, 1983 which held that Defendant Multi-Marketing owed Plaintiff Word Processing $1,300.00 in attorney’s fees for a total of $2,883.60. The Amended Judgment also held Third Party Defendant Mailman liable-to Third Party Plaintiff Multi-Marketing for the attorney’s fees.

Appellant Mailman disputes the County Court’s jurisdiction and the attorney’s fees award.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Fla. Supp. 2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mailman-inc-v-word-processing-center-flacirct-1983.