Philpot v. Rupp

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Philpot v. Rupp

640 So. 2d 1252, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 1994 WL 419641

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1601

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 1252 (Philpot v. Rupp) 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

Philpot v. Rupp, 640 So. 2d 1252, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 1994 WL 419641 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Scott Philpot appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Ross Rupp on Rupp’s claim for breach of a construction contract. We affirm the judgment after concluding that all of the issues raised on appeal lack merit. Our review of the record indicates, however, that Philpot may be entitled to receive an offset because a balance is due on the contract. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether an offset is required in this case and, if so, to determine the proper amount. See Lynch v. Florida Mining & Materials Corp., 384 So.2d 325, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (balance due on contract ordinarily should be deducted from owner’s damages for defective work). Accord Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1982).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

PETERSON, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Scott Philpot appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Ross Rupp on Rupp’s claim for breach of a construction contract. We affirm the judgment after concluding that all of the issues raised on appeal lack merit. Our review of the record indicates, however, that Philpot may be entitled to receive an offset because a balance is due on the contract. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether an offset is required in this case and, if so, to determine the proper amount. See Lynch v. Florida Mining & Materials Corp., 384 So.2d 325, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (balance due on contract ordinarily should be deducted from owner’s damages for defective work). Accord Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1982).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

PETERSON, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1252, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 1994 WL 419641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philpot-v-rupp-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack