CONTRACT. DEFENDANT'S VERDICT

• Pages: 11-11

CONTRACT

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Breach of contract – Plaintiff argues it’s owed

$427,799 for unused services due to defendant’s

inappropriate, early termination of contract

between parties – Defendant denies there was

valid, signed contract and argues parties had

agreement that lacked essential terms and did not

include requirements for early termination.

Miami-Dade County, FL

In this breach of contract case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant prematurely ended a

contract with the plaintiff against the terms of the

agreement and thus owed for the balance of

unused hours and for the remainder of the terms

of the contract. The defendant disputed that they

entered into a contract, disavowing the electronic

signature of its manager.

On September 24, 2013, the plaintiff and defendant en-

tered into a written service agreement whereby the

plaintiff agreed to provide security services for the bene-

fit of the defendant demolition company. The contract

had an effective date of September 24, 2013 for a one-

year period which renewed, by its terms, for the period

of September 24, 2014 through September 24, 2015.

The contract was electronically signed by the defen-

dant’s manager. On October 15, 2014, the defendant

improperly declared its intention to terminate the agree-

ment by sending an email correspondence which con-

tained the same electronic signature of the manager.

The defendant had previously attempted to cancel the

service agreement months earlier but had withdrawn its

intention following emails from the plaintiff advising that

doing so would constitute a breach of agreement. Thus,

the plaintiff argued, the defendant was fully aware that

a written agreement existed between the parties.

The plaintiff maintained that it was damaged by the de-

fendant’s improper early termination of the contract. Ac-

cording to the contract, it could not be terminated prior

to its expiration without a showing of sufficient cause, de-

fined as service-related problems which were not reme-

died by the plaintiff after an opportunity to do so. The

plaintiff pointed to the defendant’s termination email

which stated, in fact, that the defendant had thanked

the plaintiff for fine services provided, evidencing that

there was no causal reason to end the contract early.

Finally, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant failed

to utilize the minimum number of hours required per the

contract, which called for the utilization of initially 336

hours then later 280 hours per week. The defendant

failed to utilize and pay for the required number of

weekly hours and, as a result, was liable for payment for

the shortfall. Due to the breach of the agreement, the

plaintiff claimed it was entitled to lost profits of $249,956

plus $177,843 for minimum hours not utilized.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff had pro-

vided services according to the terms of the agreement

for one year and the parties were only operating under

an oral agreement. The defendant’s manager testified

that he did not remember if there was a written contract

between the parties. The defendant asserted that the

first contract, supposedly electronically signed by the

defendant’s manager, had no minimum number of

hours and no automatic renewability provision. The de-

fendant argued that the plaintiff’s case was premised

on a second contract, signed by a foreman, which in-

cluded exorbitant hours for a demolition project, auto-

matic renewal of the contract and liquidated

damages, none of which appeared in the original

contract.

Further, the plaintiff sought liability for the number of

hours required after the plaintiff’s Director of Security met

with a representative from the defendant company and

then followed up with an email advising the defendant

not to worry about the hours, that they could be

changed. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff

failed to prove the existence of a valid, executed con-

tract; and that the agreement lacked essential terms.

The jury found that the plaintiff proved that it entered into

a written contract with the defendant, but that the de-

fendant proved that the parties had agreed to modify

the terms of the written contract by their course of con-

duct. The jury found no breach of contract and returned

a verdict in favor of the defendant.

REFERENCE

U.S. Alliance Management Corp. vs. The BG Group, LLC.

Case no. 2016-006756-CA-01; Judge Peter R. Lopez,

03-31-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Michael W. Skop of Michael

William Skop, P.A. in Davie, FL. Attorney for plaintiff:

Ron Bradley Kurtz, Esq. in Hollywood, FL. Attorneys

for defendant: Gary S. Phillips and Alec R. Shelowitz

of Phillips Cantor & Shalek, P.A. in Hollywood, FL.

Volume 32, Issue 6, June 2022

11 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Subscribe Now