Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner

420 So. 2d 383, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 420 So. 2d 383 (Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner) 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

Wackenhut Corp. v. Conner, 420 So. 2d 383, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21393 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In order to maintain an action for breach of an oral contract a plaintiff must first establish performance on its part of the contractual obligations assumed. Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Service, Inc., 165 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Where the defendant continually complained that the requested services were not being performed, the plaintiff may not recover upon a theory of account stated, Merrill-Stevens Dry Rock Co. v. Corniche Express, 400 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases collected therein.

The trial judge’s finding that appellant failed to make a case on either theory is supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal. Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corp., 323 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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