Case Name: CAST-CRETE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. v. DAVID BOLAND, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-03-18
Citations: 523 So. 2d 1183
Docket Number: Nos. 87-685, 87-1062
Parties: CAST-CRETE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. v. DAVID BOLAND, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 523
Pages: 1183–1183

Head Matter:
CAST-CRETE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. v. DAVID BOLAND, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 87-685, 87-1062.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 18, 1988.
Rehearing Denied April 27, 1988.
David A. Maney and Karen L. Jones of Maney, Damsker & Arledge, P.A., Tampa; and Michael R. Carey of Carey, Aylward & O’Malley, Tampa, for appellant/cross-ap-pellee.
Denis L. Durkin, Thomas W. Dickson and Adrienne Fechter Dingfelder of Baker & Hostetler, Orlando, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant subcontractor appeals from a judgment for damages in favor of the general contractor in the general contractor's suit against the subcontractor for inadequate work. We affirm.
As to defendant's first point on appeal, we do not conclude that there was error in construing the contract as not requiring the condition precedent which defendant contends was required.
As to defendant's second point on appeal, we conclude that we are being asked to reweigh sufficient evidence which we are not entitled to do. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
As to the point on cross-appeal, we also affirm. We do not conclude that there was error in the exclusion of certain proffered evidence.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.