Case Name: Sam PETRULLI et al., Appellants, v. APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-10-02
Citations: 284 So. 2d 27
Docket Number: Nos. 73-129, 73-130
Parties: Sam PETRULLI et al., Appellants, v. APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 284
Pages: 27–30

Head Matter:
Sam PETRULLI et al., Appellants, v. APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 73-129, 73-130.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 2, 1973.
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellants.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, the sole point for our determination is whether the trial judge erred in ruling that appellants had no claim for loss of future profits where it had a cost plus contract with ap-pellees for construction of certain portions of appellees' condominium complex units. It appears from the record that appellants completed work on 654 units of proposed 6,600 unit complex.
The trial court allowed appellants full recovery for the work completed on the 654 units, but denied their claim for loss of future profits due to the anticipatory breach of the contract stating that such damages were too "speculative".
We have carefully considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and are of the opinion that based on the record before us the trial judge did not err in this regard. We cannot say, with any reasonable degree of certainty, that appel-lees were, in fact, bound to build exactly 6,600 units by the terms of the contract or based on the record before us. As such, it is indeed too speculative for the court to predict how many units would have or should have been built. Without such a determination any attempt at assessing the loss of future profits would have been futile. While we cannot say, from the record on appeal, that this was the reasoning of the trial judge, it is an established principle of appellate practice that affirmance is proper where appellate review discloses a theory to support same, notwithstanding the theory relied on by the lower court, erroneous or otherwise. Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 223; In re Estate of Yohn, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 290; Naples v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 78.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.