Case Name: QUALITY TYPE & GRAPHICS, Appellant, v. Douglas M. GUETZLOE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-10-15
Citations: 513 So. 2d 1110
Docket Number: No. 87-528
Parties: QUALITY TYPE & GRAPHICS, Appellant, v. Douglas M. GUETZLOE, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 513
Pages: 1110–1112

Head Matter:
QUALITY TYPE & GRAPHICS, Appellant, v. Douglas M. GUETZLOE, Appellee.
No. 87-528.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 15, 1987.
C.J. Cullom, Orlando, for appellant.
Thomas C. Feeney, III, Orlando, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a quantum meruit case. The county court certified this question to us for response:
If a plaintiff fails to prevail in an initial trial, because it failed to prove an account stated and then at a subsequent trial, sues on the theory of quantum me-ruit, whether or not the subsequent suit is barred by the theory of splitting causes of action.
We affirm the judgment against the plaintiff. The trial court found, we believe properly, that the plaintiff is barred from recovery by the doctrine of res adjudicata.
. the doctrine res adjudicata means that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction directly rendered upon a particular issue, is conclusive as to the parties and the issue decided in the same or any other controversy.
Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423 (1948).
When a plaintiff sues a defendant it is incumbent upon him to correctly state his basis for relief and then adequately prove it. Plaintiff's failure to do either of these warrants a judgment against the plaintiff and for the defendant. If a plaintiff is unsure of the correct legal basis for relief he may plead in the alternative. That is, he may set out the facts of the occurrence or transaction and demand judgment in his favor on several bases, even mutually exclusive ones. For example, on account of a single transaction a plaintiff may sue to enforce a contract and also, in the same complaint, sue to recover damages alleging there was no contract. At the end of the case, at or before trial, he may be forced to make an election as to which theory he stands upon or, in some cases of alternative pleading, it is proper to submit the case to the jury or judge to decide on which basis, if any, he prevails.
However, it is an abuse of the legal process, and the defendant, to permit a plaintiff to sue on one legal theory and after losing because he cannot support his allegations to come back and allege the same occurrence or transaction and seek relief in a different legal theory.
This is not unjust, as the dissent claims, but may be unfair to the plaintiff who is owed money and is left empty-handed. The fault lies not in our justice system but in the failure of the plaintiff to properly use it.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.