Pifer, Inc. v. Schubot

Florida Circuit Courts

Pifer, Inc. v. Schubot

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 131

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 1990

DocketCase No. AP 89-7045 AZ

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (Pifer, Inc. v. Schubot) 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

Pifer, Inc. v. Schubot, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is a company that sells and services golf carts. Appellee purchased a golf cart from appellant for use at his bird-breeding facility but found the cart unacceptable for its intended use and [132]*132brought suit for breach of implied contract and breach of warranty. The trial court awarded appellee, plaintiff below, $3500 (in effect the return of the purchase price) less of setoff of $970.24, i.e., the amount owed for unrelated unpaid bills. The judgment, however, did not require the return of the golf cart.

It appears that the trial court fashioned the remedy of rescission. In granting rescission the court should attempt to restore parties to the status quo. Lang v Horne, 23 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1945); Braman Dodge, Inc. v Smith, 515 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Accordingly, if the cart is unavailable to be returned, the correct measure of damages should be the difference between the purchase price and the value of the cart to the purchaser. This cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RODGERS, RAPP and OFTEDAL, J.J., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is a company that sells and services golf carts. Appellee purchased a golf cart from appellant for use at his bird-breeding facility but found the cart unacceptable for its intended use and [132]*132brought suit for breach of implied contract and breach of warranty. The trial court awarded appellee, plaintiff below, $3500 (in effect the return of the purchase price) less of setoff of $970.24, i.e., the amount owed for unrelated unpaid bills. The judgment, however, did not require the return of the golf cart.

It appears that the trial court fashioned the remedy of rescission. In granting rescission the court should attempt to restore parties to the status quo. Lang v Horne, 23 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1945); Braman Dodge, Inc. v Smith, 515 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Accordingly, if the cart is unavailable to be returned, the correct measure of damages should be the difference between the purchase price and the value of the cart to the purchaser. This cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RODGERS, RAPP and OFTEDAL, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pifer-inc-v-schubot-flacirct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack