Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
National Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberggreen2 sentences2019“In the context of contracts for construction, the doctrine of substantial performance is applicable only where the contractor has not willfully or materially breached the terms of his contract or has not intentionally failed to comply with the specifications.” National Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberg, 681 So. 2d 791, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). 5. 2013“In the context of contracts for construction, the doctrine of substantial performance is applicable only where the contractor has not willfully or materially breached the terms of his contract or has not intentionally failed to comply with the specifications.” National Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberg, 681 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). 5. | 2 | 3 |
Hufcor/Gulfstream, Inc. v. Homestead Concrete & Drainage, Inc.green2 sentences2019“There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay.” Hufcor/Gulfstream, Inc. v. Homestead Concrete & Drainage, Inc., 831 So. 2d 767, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). 416.20 INTERPRETATION—CONSTRUCTION AGAINST DRAFTER You must first attempt to determine the meaning of the ambiguous term[s] in the contract from the evidence presented and the previous instructions. 2018"There is almost always no such thing as `substantial performance' of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay." Hufcor/Gulfstream, Inc. v. Homestead Concrete & Drainage, Inc., 831 So.2d 767 , 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). 416.20 INTERPRETATION - CONSTRUCTION AGAINST DRAFTER You must first attempt to determine the meaning of the ambiguous term[s] in the contract from the evidence presented and the previous instructions. | 2 | 3 |
Lockhart v. Worshamgreen1 sentence1996Lazovitz, Inc. v. Saxon Constr., Inc., 911 F.2d 588, 592 (11th Cir.1990); Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“[The] doctrine [of substantial performance] is applicable where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.”) (citing 17A C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
Lazovitz, Inc. v. Saxon Construction, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. The Klett Organization, Architects, P.A., Third Partygreen1 sentence1996Lazovitz, Inc. v. Saxon Constr., Inc., 911 F.2d 588, 592 (11th Cir.1990); Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“[The] doctrine [of substantial performance] is applicable where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.”) (citing 17A C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.