$______ VERDICT - BREACH OF CONTRACT - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - PLAINTIFF PORT SERVICES PROVIDER CLAIMS DEFENDANT SHIPPING COMPANY BREACHED CONTRACT TO USE PLAINTIFF'S SERVICES EXCLUSIVELY AND ARGUES DEFENDANT UNJUSTLY BENEFITTED FROM SERVICES OF PLAINTIFF - DEFENDANT DENIES CONTRACT AND ARGUES IT PAID IN FULL FOR ANY AND ALL SERVICES.

Pages2-3
Summaries with Trial Analysis
$5,000,000 VERDICT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – PLAINTIFF
PORT SERVICES PROVIDER CLAIMS DEFENDANT SHIPPING COMPANY BREACHED
CONTRACT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S SERVICES EXCLUSIVELY AND ARGUES DEFENDANT
UNJUSTLY BENEFITTED FROM SERVICES OF PLAINTIFF – DEFENDANT DENIES
CONTRACT AND ARGUES IT PAID IN FULL FOR ANY AND ALL SERVICES.
Broward County, FL
In this breach of contract action, the plaintiff port
services company asserted that the defendant
shipping company breached an agreement to
employ the plaintiff’s services for a period of 8
years. The plaintiff maintained that the parties
had had a business relationship since 2008. In the
summer of 2013, the parties agreed to
consolidate their existing services from the
defendant’s Mid Port Terminal location into the
plaintiff’s South Port Terminal at Port Everglades.
In January 2014, in furtherance of the parties’
negotiations, the plaintiff provided engineering
and architectural design drawings and site plans
including construction schedules for the
improvement project. Consistent with the parties
meetings and representations, and reliance on
agreements reached with one another, the
plaintiff prepared a Terminal Service Contract
with a schedule of rates covering terminal and
stevedoring services to commence on October 24,
2014, which consisted of definite terms and
conditions agreed to by the parties and reflecting
a meeting of the minds. The defendant denied
that an enforceable contract existed between the
parties.
The plaintiff argued that the agreement provided for the
defendant to make a commitment to utilize the plaintiff
as its exclusive terminal service provider at Port
Everglades for a period of at least eight years. The con-
tract contained two particularly material terms, the first
being the term of 8 years, and the second being a re-
quirement that the plaintiff remain the exclusive terminal
service operator for the defendant at Port Everglades.
The plaintiff maintained that it had a Container Steve-
doring and Terminal Services Agreement with the
defendant.
The plaintiff sent a copy of the contract to be signed
and argued that, while the defendant agreed to the
terms of the contract, it did not return a signed copy to
the plaintiff. From October 24, 2014 through December
20, 2017, the defendant made payments to the plaintiff
for stevedoring and terminal services consistent with the
terms and conditions of the contract. The plaintiff ar-
gued that the defendant then breached the contract
by utilizing the services of another terminal operator at
Port Everglades. The plaintiff also claimed unjust enrich-
ment, estoppel, and contract implied in law against the
defendant. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant
was obligated to pay the plaintiff for damages arising
from its early cancellation and breach of the exclusivity
provision of the contract.
The defendant asserted that there was never a signed,
written contract. The defendant argued that the plaintiff
presented the defendant with a proposed draft agree-
ment in 2014, but that neither party signed the agree-
ment at that time. The defendant held that the parties
only did business together on a pay-as-you- go basis. In
addition, the defendant maintained that there was no
evidence of a benefit conferred on the defendant for
which the plaintiff did not receive payment.
The jury found that the plaintiff did confer a benefit to
the defendant, that the defendant knew of the benefit
and accepted or retained the benefit and should be re-
quired to pay for the benefit. The jury awarded dam-
ages in the amount of $5,000,000. On the charge of
promissory estoppel, the jury found that the plaintiff
failedtoprovethatthedefendantpromisedtousethe
plaintiff’s port terminal services on an exclusive basis for
eight years. The jury also found that four containers
owned or leased by the defendant were damaged
while in the custody of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff
owed the defendant $42,732.
REFERENCE
Port Everglades Terminal LLC vs. Chiquita Fresh North
America, LLC. Case no. CACE18001636; Judge Mily R.
Powell, 10-12-21.
Attorney for plaintiff: Robert W. Blanck of Blanck &
Cooper, P.A. in Miami, FL. Attorneys for defendant:
Charles S. Marion and Anthony R. Yanez of Blank
Rome, LLP in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
COMMENTARY
In the course of the trial, the defendant moved for summary judg-
ment as to its assertion that maritime law did not apply to the case.
The defendant argued that the nature of the services the plaintiff
provided, and proposed providing, pursuant to the purported con-
tract, were not maritime in nature, and therefore, maritime law
2
Volume 32, Issue 3, March 2022
Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.
Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT