Tubby's Customs, Inc. v. Euler
225 So. 3d 405
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Euler contracted with Tubby's to restore a 1956 Ford coupe to "run & drive" for $15,000; Tubby's owner is Lenward Martin.
- Euler paid $15,000 in three $5,000 installments and later gave an additional $3,500 (via a friend) after Tubby's failed to get the car running for the original price; total paid $18,500.
- Tubby's did not complete the restoration; Euler retrieved the car and sued for breach of contract.
- At trial Euler sought alternative damages: reasonable cost of completion ($8,829.30), a rebate (difference between amount paid and value of repairs, $9,250), and $44 towing. He admitted the contract did not require Tubby's to do the interior work.
- Trial court found breach and awarded $12,329.30 in damages (seemingly $8,829.30 plus $3,500), plus costs, for a total judgment of $15,228.95.
- Appellate court reviewed damage calculation de novo and considered whether the judgment improperly combined inconsistent remedies or exceeded amounts pleaded and proved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of damages for total breach (benefit-of-bargain) | Euler: Award the cost to complete repairs (e.g., $8,829.30) or value difference; trial court properly awarded completion plus $3,500 as interior completion | Tubby's: Award exceeded permissible cap and improperly combined inconsistent recovery theories | Court: Euler pleaded alternative measures; trial court may elect measure, but must award only amounts proved. Damages limited to the proven reasonable cost of completion ($8,829.30) plus costs. |
| Inclusion of $3,500 for interior work not in contract | Euler: $3,500 was necessary to get car running/drivable | Tubby's: Interior charge outside the contract and not proven as recoverable | Court: Euler testified interior was not part of contract; trial court erred including $3,500. That portion of judgment reversed and remanded for entry consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. CyberKnife Ctr. of Treasure Coast, LLC, 204 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (review of trial court's damages method is de novo)
- Katz Deli of Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (damages-calculation review principles cited)
- Camper Corral, Inc. v. Perantoni, 801 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (party seeking damages must present evidence to justify a definite amount)
- Smith v. Austin Dev. Co., 538 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (evidence requirement for definite damages awards)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (benefit-of-the-bargain damages for total breach)
- Rector v. Larson's Marine, Inc., 479 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (proper measures: reasonable cost of completion or difference in value)
- Liddle v. A.F. Dozer, Inc., 777 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (trial court can elect between mutually exclusive remedies before judgment)
- Taylor v. Lee, 884 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (trial court erred awarding damages outside scope of breached contract)