Seaview Awning Shutters of Miami, Inc. v. E. M. Eisfield, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seaview Awning Shutters of Miami, Inc. v. E. M. Eisfield, Inc.

106 So. 2d 597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 1958

DocketNo. 58-83

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 So. 2d 597 (Seaview Awning Shutters of Miami, Inc. v. E. M. Eisfield, 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

Seaview Awning Shutters of Miami, Inc. v. E. M. Eisfield, Inc., 106 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

HORTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee which awarded a money judgment on a liquidated claim. The appellant, defendant below, takes this appeal alleging a dispute as to material issues of fact which would preclude a summary judgment.

The amended complaint alleged a written contract between the parties and a subsequent breach by the appellant. The answer of the appellant admitted the execution of the written contract sued upon and raised the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. Specifically, the appellant alleged that the parties created a new contract under different terms. This contract was alleged to be written- and consisted of correspondence between the parties. At this stage of the proceedings, the only disputed issue under the pleadings was the alleged existence of a new written contract.

The appellee moved for summary judgment with an affidavit attached which denied any new contract. The appellant responded with affidavits which, in substance, claimed a misrepresentation by the appellee of the quality of the items sold under the contract, and the existence of an oral contract between the parties. Neither of these issues was raised by the pleadings and therefore were beyond the scope of the issues involved. Cf. Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App., 108 So.2d 324. The appellee filed a counter-affidavit to which were attached exhibits consisting of the correspondence between the parties. At best, the exhibits were offers or proposals-which were never accepted by the appellant. It was clearly demonstrated by these-exhibits that the appellant’s defense of accord and satisfaction could not be sustained: in fact and therefore no genuine issue of' any material fact remained for determination.

The appellant did not attempt to amends its answer so as to create the new issues set out in the affidavits. On motion for summary judgment, the only genuine issue of a material fact was as to the existence-of a new written contract between the parties. The appellant offered nothing to rebut the showing made by the appellee’s affidavits and exhibits which conclusively showed the non-existence of a new contract.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.

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

HORTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee which awarded a money judgment on a liquidated claim. The appellant, defendant below, takes this appeal alleging a dispute as to material issues of fact which would preclude a summary judgment.

The amended complaint alleged a written contract between the parties and a subsequent breach by the appellant. The answer of the appellant admitted the execution of the written contract sued upon and raised the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. Specifically, the appellant alleged that the parties created a new contract under different terms. This contract was alleged to be written- and consisted of correspondence between the parties. At this stage of the proceedings, the only disputed issue under the pleadings was the alleged existence of a new written contract.

The appellee moved for summary judgment with an affidavit attached which denied any new contract. The appellant responded with affidavits which, in substance, claimed a misrepresentation by the appellee of the quality of the items sold under the contract, and the existence of an oral contract between the parties. Neither of these issues was raised by the pleadings and therefore were beyond the scope of the issues involved. Cf. Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App., 108 So.2d 324. The appellee filed a counter-affidavit to which were attached exhibits consisting of the correspondence between the parties. At best, the exhibits were offers or proposals-which were never accepted by the appellant. It was clearly demonstrated by these-exhibits that the appellant’s defense of accord and satisfaction could not be sustained: in fact and therefore no genuine issue of' any material fact remained for determination.

The appellant did not attempt to amends its answer so as to create the new issues set out in the affidavits. On motion for summary judgment, the only genuine issue of a material fact was as to the existence-of a new written contract between the parties. The appellant offered nothing to rebut the showing made by the appellee’s affidavits and exhibits which conclusively showed the non-existence of a new contract.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaview-awning-shutters-of-miami-inc-v-e-m-eisfield-inc-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack