Gittlin Companies, Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Burger King Corp. v. Mason (11th Cir. 1983)
- Schneer v. Allstate Indem. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Wong Ken v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
- Hibiscus Associates Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Policemen & Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit (11th Cir. 1995)
- Cenal v. Jaramillo (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
GITTLIN COMPANIES, INC., Appellant,
v.
DAVID & DASH, INC., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Turner, Hendrick, Guilford, Goldstein & McDonald and S. Alan Stanley, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin and Evan Langbein and Alan E. Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Purportedly because the appellee David & Dash's employees made $597.08 in direct sales of wallpaper, in violation of the exclusive distribution provision of the parties' agreement, the appellant, Gittlin, repudiated the entire contract, and thus refused to honor its undertaking to purchase well over $100,000 of the material from the appellee. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that David & Dash's breach was not a material or substantial one and therefore did not justify the recission of the contract by the appellant. See Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 1954); Steak House, Inc. v. Barnett, 65 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1953); Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King International, Inc., 267 So.2d 853, 857-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts § 504 (1964); 12 Williston, Contracts § 1455 (3d ed. Jaeger 1970). We entirely agree with that determination. Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co., 152 U.S. 200, 14 S.Ct. 523, 38 L.Ed. 411 (1894); McAlpine v. AAMCO Automatic Transmissions, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 1232 (E.D. Mich. 1978). Accordingly, the order granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for breach of contract in favor of David & Dash, now under review pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.