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.
GFR LEASING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., Appellee.
GFR Leasing Corporation (GFR) appeals a final judgment awarding damages to appellee, Transportation Equipment Specialists, Inc. (TES), under TES' quantum meruit counterclaim for repairs made by TES on 24 refrigerated shipping containers owned by GFR and leased by GFR to Cuban Carribean Shipping Company (CCSC), a company which had contracted with TES for the repair of the containers and, while the repairs were in process, had ceased business owing sums to GFR under the lease and to TES for the repairs. Competent, substantial evidence introduced at the bench trial supports findings that TES performed services which conferred a benefit on GFR; that after, CCSC defaulted under the lease, GFR representatives visited the TES facilities and discussed the repairs, and GFR knew TES was making repairs to the containers with an expectation of being paid; that GFR accepted and retained the benefits of the repairs by obtaining possession of the repaired containers through a writ of replevin; and that it would be inequitable under the circumstances for GFR not to pay for those benefits. Accordingly, the elements of a cause of action based on quantum meruit or quasi contract were established below. See Commerce Partnership 8098 Limited Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co., 695 So.2d 383, 386-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Further, based on the evidence in the record of the instant case, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in awarding damages to TES based upon the amount of its unpaid invoices prepared pursuant to the repair contract with CCSC, as representing the reasonable value of TES' labor and the market value of its material furnished in the repairs. See Moore v. Spanish River Land Co., 118 Fla. 549, 159 So. 673, 674 (Fla.1935), aff'd on reh'g, Town of Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 So. 279 (Fla.1936); Digital Systems of Florida v. Committe, 472 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
PER CURIAM.
BOOTH, MINER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
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. 98-3696.
Decided: July 27, 1999
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First 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)