Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

449 So. 2d 1

Docket No. 83-326.

Kovtan v. Frederiksen

John M. KOVTAN, Appellant, v. Kay H. FREDERIKSEN, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 21, 1984.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-03-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Harris v. Schickedanz Bros.-Riviera Ltd., 956 So. 2d 1222 - Ocean Communications, Inc. v. Bubeck

Relies on Hazen v. Cobb-Vaughan Motor Co. · 315 So. 2d 518 - Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind · 243 So. 2d 605 - Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Associates, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Diamond" S" Development Corporation v. Mercantile Bank (2008), Fraud-Tech, Inc. v. Choicepoint, Inc. (2003)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

1201984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Thomas E. Reynolds of Law Office of Edward D. Foreman, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

¶2Zala L. Forizs of Blasingame, Forizs & Smiljanich, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In this appeal appellant contends the trial court erred in directing a verdict against appellant in his suit to recover money damages for accounting services rendered to appellee.

¶5Upon review of the record, including the briefs, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that appellant based his claim for relief on the quasi-contract theory of contract recovery. However, during the course of the trial, appellant testified that appellee expressly agreed to compensate him for the services, thereby proving the existence of an express agreement between the parties. It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter. Hazen v. Cobb,96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Williams v. Stewart,424 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Poe v. Estate of Levy,411 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency v. Zeskind,315 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Solutec v. Young & Lawrence Associates, Inc.,243 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

¶6Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's granting of appellee's motion for directed verdict.

¶7OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.

/449/so2d/1 · .json · Public domain