Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GRAY LINE OF ORLANDO, LTD., Appellant, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, etc., Appellee.
Gray Line of Orlando, Ltd. (Gray Line), appeals an order dismissing its complaint against Central Florida Regional Transportation, etc. (Lynx).
Lynx entered into a contract with Gray Line authorizing the latter to furnish certain transportation services in Orange, Seminole and Osceola counties. Gray Line alleged that Lynx breached the contract by failing to pay for services under the contract, by imposing computer and software requirements not contemplated under the contract, and by contracting directly with Gray Lines' subcontractor for services that were to be provided by Gray Line.
The trial court dismissed Gray Line's complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with the administrative dispute resolution procedure set forth in its contract with Lynx. We affirm the dismissal. See State, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. E.D.S. Federal Corp., 631 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA).
Gray Line argues that the resolution provision applies only to factual disputes and that no factual disputes exist in this case. We disagree. Gray Line's claim for nonpayment presents several questions of fact, including whether Lynx actually failed to pay, whether Gray Line earned the compensation, and whether the amount claimed is proper. Likewise, Gray Line's breach of contract counts relating to the computer equipment and the hiring of Gray Line's former subcontractor also present factual questions, such as whether additional computer equipment costs were wrongly imposed, and whether Lynx was contractually prevented from dealing with Gray Line's former subcontractor.
The order of dismissal is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, C.J., dissents without opinion.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 98–589
Decided: December 23, 1998
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)