Case Name: Pauline WEISFELD, Appellant, v. PETERSEIL SCHOOL CORP., d/b/a The Heritage School, and Joseph Peterseil, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-05-11
Citations: 623 So. 2d 515
Docket Number: No. 91-2821
Parties: Pauline WEISFELD, Appellant, v. PETERSEIL SCHOOL CORP., d/b/a The Heritage School, and Joseph Peterseil, Appellees.
Judges: Before BASKIN, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 623
Pages: 515–520

Head Matter:
Pauline WEISFELD, Appellant, v. PETERSEIL SCHOOL CORP., d/b/a The Heritage School, and Joseph Peterseil, Appellees.
No. 91-2821.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 11, 1993.
Order Clarifying Opinion June 22, 1993.
Baldwin & Friedman, P.A., and Kenneth A. Friedman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Valdes-Fauli, Cobb, Bischoff & Kriss, P.A., and Robert S. Turk, Leslie W. Lang-bein, and Jeremy J. Hart, for appellees.
Before BASKIN, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
COPE, Judge.
Pauline Weisfeld appeals an adverse final judgment after bench trial. We reverse.
During the summer of 1988, Weisfeld signed an employment contract to teach art at the Heritage School for the 1988-89 school year. The Heritage School was operated by appellee Peterseil School Corp., and was administered by Joseph Peterseil, headmaster.
The employment contract had a liquidated damages clause. It provided that if a teacher left the School's employ without the School's consent, then the teacher would owe the School two months' wages as liquidated damages. The employment contract also provided that Heritage could notify other schools of the existence of the employment agreement, and could require other schools to deactivate any pending employment applications that the teacher might have with such schools.
Weisfeld reported to work on August 29, 1988, as required by the contract. In mid-September, the Dade County Public School System contacted Weisfeld about a teaching vacancy. On September 19, Dade County offered, and Weisfeld accepted, a teaching position effective September 26.
On September 19 Weisfeld met with the headmaster. She informed the headmaster that she had accepted a teaching position with Dade County. She told him that Friday, September 23, would be her last day of work. She asked Heritage's consent to relieve her of her contractual obligations and offered to assist in finding a replacement. The headmaster refused consent and refused to accept her resignation.
The same day, the headmaster contacted Dr. Garner of the Dade County School System. Dade County had an announced policy that it would not offer a job to a teacher who was under contract to another school. The headmaster complained that a job had been offered to Weisfeld in violation of the announced policy.
On Tuesday morning, Dr. Garner conducted a conference telephone call with the headmaster and Weisfeld. The headmaster reiterated that Weisfeld was under contract to Heritage. He stated that the School did not have someone to replace her and would not consent to her departure. Dr. Garner then told Weisfeld and the headmaster that Dade County's job offer to Weisfeld was withdrawn.
That afternoon, the headmaster interviewed and hired a replacement art teacher, to begin work the following Monday, September 26. He did not advise Weisfeld or Dade County of this.
Meanwhile, Weisfeld remained on the job. She made several attempts to meet with the headmaster. She had heard rumors that she was to be replaced and fired. She wished to verify whether or not she would have a job at Heritage. The headmaster refused to see her.
On Friday afternoon, September 23, the School delivered a letter firing her. It stated:
Please be advised that the undersigned represents The Heritage School, with whom you are employed pursuant to a Faculty Employment Contract dated June 1, 1988. Dr. Joseph Peterseil has advised me that on Monday, September 19, 1988, you tendered your resignation in order to seek employment with the Dade County School System, which resignation was not accepted. We consider your resignation to be a breach of your employment contract.
Please be advised that effective 3:00 P.M. today, you are no longer employed by The Heritage School. Be further advised that we intend to pursue remedies provided by Paragraph 5 of your contract [the liquidated damages clause].
In the meantime, Dade County had filled the position it had offered Weisfeld. Upon learning that Weisfeld had been discharged, Dade County hired Weisfeld as a substitute teacher and eventually placed her in a permanent teaching position.
The School brought suit for liquidated damages for breach of contract. Weisfeld counterclaimed for breach of contract and intentional interference with a contractual relationship. After a bench trial, the court ruled in the School's favor. Weisfeld has appealed.
By policy Dade County would not offer a position to a teacher already under contract to a private school, unless the private school gave its consent. The obvious purpose was to assist private schools in keeping their teachers on the job for the balance of the contract year, unless in a particular case a school was in a position to let a teacher leave.
Here, the headmaster contacted Dade County and complained that the County had offered a job to Weisfeld, who was under contract to Heritage. Dr. Garner asked the headmaster point blank if he would release Weisfeld to Dade County, and the headmaster refused to do so. Dade County then withdrew its job offer to Weisfeld.
Up to this point, the headmaster had acted to protect Heritage's contractual rights, or at least the trier of fact could so find. However, the headmaster had caused Dade County to withdraw its job offer, so that the Heritage School could hold Weisfeld to her teaching contract. Having gone this far, Heritage was obliged to allow Weisfeld to perform her contract. At this point the School was es-topped from changing its position.
Within a matter of hours after the conference call with Dr. Garner, the headmaster interviewed and hired a new art teacher. From that moment on, it was obvious that the headmaster was going to fire Weisfeld. Weisfeld attempted to see the headmaster all week, but he refused. On Friday of that same week Heritage fired Weisfeld.
We conclude that once Heritage caused Dade County to withdraw its offer, Heritage had to allow Weisfeld an opportunity to perform her contract. By firing her, Heritage breached the contract. The judgment against Weisfeld for breach of contract must be reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of Weisfeld on her breach of contract counterclaim, and for computation of damages accordingly.
Weisfeld also counterclaimed against the School for intentional interference with a contractual relationship. See Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So.2d 1126 (Fla.1985). The question here hinges on the headmaster's intent at the time he refused to give Dr. Garner consent to Weisfeld's accepting a Dade County job. The headmaster had a qualified privilege to protect Heritage's contract rights with Weisfeld.
The headmaster testified that he acted in good faith when he refused consent for Weis-feld to leave. He stated that at that time he wanted Weisfeld to stay on the job. He testified that the machinery to find a replacement was already in motion and it was fortuitous that the Tuesday afternoon interviewee turned out to be well qualified. He testified that at that point — which was after the conference call — he decided to replace Weisfeld.
Weisfeld argues that under the circumstances, the headmaster must have intended to fire her all along. Weisfeld contends that the headmaster acted out of spite in causing Dade County to withdraw' the offer. She urges that the headmaster's prompt hiring of a replacement, coupled with a refusal to advise her or Dade County that he had done so, points inescapably to bad faith and tortious conduct.
The trial court found in favor of the headmaster and School on this factual issue. Although the evidence is disputed, there is a factual basis on which the trial court could find that, at the time the headmaster contacted Dade County, his actions were taken in order to protect the School's own contractual rights, and were thus privileged. See Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.), cert, denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); see also McCur-dy v. Collis, 508 So.2d 380, 383-84 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 518 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1987). On the intentional interference counterclaim the judgment is affirmed. A breach of contract was committed, but not a tort.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BASKIN, J., concurs.
. Weisfeld had taught at Heritage for the preceding four years.
. Weisfeld testified that she was, through no fault of her own, in financial straits and needed the additional income available through Dade County's higher pay scale.
.Plainly Weisfeld would not be leaving Heritage for a Dade County job, since the Dade County job had been withdrawn. The School could have, however, demanded an unequivocal assurance from Weisfeld that she would continue to perform the contract, failing which the School could discharge her. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 251. The School sought no such assurances, and instead hired a new teacher while refusing to meet with Weisfeld. Weisfeld continued to perform her duties until fired.
. The judgment against Weisfeld for attorney's fees for trial is reversed. On remand the court shall conduct such proceedings as are appropriate on Weisfeld's application for attorney's fees for trial under section 448.08, Florida Statutes (1987).
. Heritage also had comparable rights under the terms of its contract with Weisfeld.