188 So. 2d 690 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1966
Defendant has appealed a summary final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. By his sole point on appeal appellant urges reversal because the file discloses genuine issues of material fact which may be properly resolved only by the jury after trial.
Appellee brought action in quantum meruit by a complaint in two counts, the first of which prayed for judgment on an account stated, and the second for judgment for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant.
To the complaint appellant interposed two defenses, the first of which was one of general denial. By his second defense appellant alleged that the amount claimed by appellee represents back charges for costs and expenses necessarily incurred by appellant in correcting defects in the fabricated steel products purchased by appellant from appellee, which costs and expenses were authorized by appellee prior to the time they were incurred.
From the request for admissions and answers thereto, the interrogatories pro- ■ pounded to and answered by appellant, and the affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to appellee’s motion for summary judgment, the following facts appear. On April 7, 1964, appellee submitted to appellant its written proposal to furnish certain specified fabricated steel products to be
The disputes between the parties which create genuine issues of material facts as disclosed by the pleadings and evidence in the file are: (1) the nature and extent of the alleged defects in the steel products purchased by appellant from appellee; (2) whether the alleged defects were known to and acknowledged by appellee’s agent; (3) the authority of appellee’s agent to authorize correction of the alleged defects at ap-pellee’s expense; and (4) the reasonable costs incurred by appellant in correcting the alleged defects in order to conform the products purchased to the plans and specifications on which appellee’s proposal was made and accepted.
We have stated so often that it seems trite to repeat that the facts in evidence, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, must be indulged in favor of the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is asked. The converse is never true.
It is our view that the trial court committed error in rendering the summary final judgment appealed. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
. Harding v. American Universal Insurance Company, (Fla.App.1961) 130 So.2d 86, 89.
. Crepaldi v. Wagner, (Fla.App.1961) 132 So.2d 222, 226.