Tavormina v. Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tavormina v. Dade County

508 So. 2d 1293, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2408

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 1293 (Tavormina v. Dade County) 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

Tavormina v. Dade County, 508 So. 2d 1293, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following our opinion and decision reported in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) the matter reoccurred in the trial court. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court again awarded summary judgment in favor of the county. The summary judgment reads in part as follows:

“... This Court has previously entered a Summary Judgment in favor of the County which was reversed in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), because the record failed to reveal whether the County had awarded a similar contract to anyone other than Plaintiff. This issue of exclusivity was addressed twice — first with respect to whether the contract in question is a “requirements” contract and, secondly, with respect to whether the contract included hauling services.

The County has filed an Affidavit with attached exhibits which show that the identical contract, for the identical materials, at the same delivery site, was awarded to a second bidder as part of the same bidding process. This fact, being uncontested, clearly shows that Plaintiff’s contract was not intended to be exclusive and therefore is not a “requirements” contract. Further, since there is no exclusivity, there is also no breach for failure to use Plaintiff’s services for hauling. However, on this latter point, Defendant requested leave to supplement the record to show that all hauling of fill was accomplished by use of contractors operating under other blanket purchase orders which related solely to hauling services and did not include the supply of any fill material. Plaintiff acknowledged that the County’s proffer on this point was factually correct. The Court accordingly accepts the County’s proffer as part of the record in this cause.”

We find no error and affirm. Mid-south Packers, Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir.1985); Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., 589 F.2d 451 (9th Cir.1979); Propane Industrial, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 429 F.Supp. 214 (W.D.Mo.1977); Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Donald B. Ludwig Co., 144 N.J.Super 556, 366 A.2d 721 (1976); Anno. 96 A.L.R.3d 1275, 1281; Anno. 26 A.L.R.2d 1139, 1148; compare Jenkins v. City Ice and Fuel Company, 118 Fla. 795, 160 So. 215 (1935).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following our opinion and decision reported in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) the matter reoccurred in the trial court. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court again awarded summary judgment in favor of the county. The summary judgment reads in part as follows:

“... This Court has previously entered a Summary Judgment in favor of the County which was reversed in Tavormina v. Dade County, 475 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), because the record failed to reveal whether the County had awarded a similar contract to anyone other than Plaintiff. This issue of exclusivity was addressed twice — first with respect to whether the contract in question is a “requirements” contract and, secondly, with respect to whether the contract included hauling services.

The County has filed an Affidavit with attached exhibits which show that the identical contract, for the identical materials, at the same delivery site, was awarded to a second bidder as part of the same bidding process. This fact, being uncontested, clearly shows that Plaintiff’s contract was not intended to be exclusive and therefore is not a “requirements” contract. Further, since there is no exclusivity, there is also no breach for failure to use Plaintiff’s services for hauling. However, on this latter point, Defendant requested leave to supplement the record to show that all hauling of fill was accomplished by use of contractors operating under other blanket purchase orders which related solely to hauling services and did not include the supply of any fill material. Plaintiff acknowledged that the County’s proffer on this point was factually correct. The Court accordingly accepts the County’s proffer as part of the record in this cause.”

We find no error and affirm. Mid-south Packers, Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir.1985); Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., 589 F.2d 451 (9th Cir.1979); Propane Industrial, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 429 F.Supp. 214 (W.D.Mo.1977); Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Donald B. Ludwig Co., 144 N.J.Super 556, 366 A.2d 721 (1976); Anno. 96 A.L.R.3d 1275, 1281; Anno. 26 A.L.R.2d 1139, 1148; compare Jenkins v. City Ice and Fuel Company, 118 Fla. 795, 160 So. 215 (1935).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 1293, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavormina-v-dade-county-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack