Case Name: FIRST AMERICAN FARMS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. MARDEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a partnership, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-12-09
Citations: 255 So. 2d 536
Docket Number: No. O-446
Parties: FIRST AMERICAN FARMS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. MARDEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a partnership, Appellee.
Judges: SPECTOR, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 255
Pages: 536–541

Head Matter:
FIRST AMERICAN FARMS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. MARDEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a partnership, Appellee.
No. O-446.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 9, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1972.
Barrow & Holley, Crestview, for appellant.
Clyde B. Wells, De Funiak Springs, for appellee.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Judge.
First American Farms, Inc., appeals from a final judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, ordering it to pay appellee the sum of $49,440.00 plus interest thereon.
Appellee instituted the present suit in order to obtain damages in the amount of the purchase price of a machine known as a PB-7 Bush Cutter. The evidence produced at the trial of this cause reveals the following facts. In the latter part of 1967 one of appellee's partners, Mr. Marion Denton, met with appellant's general manager and discussed the PB-7 Bush Cutter. After viewing some film showing the machine at work, appellant arranged to send a tractor and trailer to appellee's plant to pick up said machine and bring it back to appellant's farm for demonstration purposes. The trailer sent was too short to transport the PB-7, so Mr. Denton arranged at his own expense to have the PB-7 delivered to appellant's property.
One of appellee's employees came to appellant's farm with the PB-7 in order to instruct and supervise in the use of the machine. Appellant's employee drove the machine into a wet branch head where it got stuck when it hit the bed of a creek. After various futile attempts (which spanned a period of eight months), on the part of both appellant and appellee to remove the machine, appellee sent appellant an invoice for the purchase price of the PB-7. Upon appellant's refusal to pay the invoice, the present suit was instituted.
Appellee contended that the agreement between the parties was that appellant would either buy the machine or send it back to the appellee. Since appellant did n°t send it back, appellee claimed that there was a sale and that it: was entitled to collect the purchase price of the PB-7 from appellant.
Appellant claimed that there was no sale and that appellee was therefore not entitled to receive the purchase price of the machine. It is emphasized by appellant that a contract for the sale of a $48,000.00 machine falls within the Statute of Frauds. Only an acceptance on the part of the appellant could bring the contract out of the requirement of a writing, and such was not demonstrated herein. Without an acceptance there was no contract as a matter of law and a verdict should have been directed, according to appellant. (See F.S.A. § 672.2-201 and 672.2-327).
A careful review of the testimony as revealed by the trial transcript convinces us that a verdict should have been directed in appellant's favor. It is apparent from the record that the machine was delivered to appellant's property for demonstration purposes only. Neither appellant nor ap-pellee considered it to be a sale at this time. Mr. Denton testified that appellee attempted to get the machine returned to it for eight months and that he had another place to take the machine. Denton further testified as follows:
"Q. All right. So then when the machine arrived up here it wasn't sold, was it? As far as you were concerned, was it sold to them ?
"A. No sir. As far as I was concerned it was not sold to them if they would send it back to me. There was a stipulation that if they did not send it back to me, it was sold to them.
"Q. On what date did you consider it sold?
"A. August 29, 1968.
"Q. And that's the date you sent them the invoice?
"A. Correct. Yes sir.
"Q. Up until that time there was no sale ?
"A. Up until that time I was doing everything possible to get it returned to us; sending our people and doing everything possible to have it returned. If it had been returned, that would have ended it. There would have been no sale. There would have been no bills to them. It was billed to them in exact conformity to their agreement and understanding."
At another time, Mr. Denton stated that "the contract with them was that they would send it back." Further testimony from other witnesses was to the same effect. It is clear that there was never the essential "meeting of the minds" to constitute a valid contract of sale.
Appellee's suit was based upon the breach of a contract of sale. It is our opinion that there was absolutely no evidence of a sale under the present circumstances and that appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence should have been granted. The record bears out the fact that the machine was delivered to appellant's property for demonstration purposes only. Mr. Denton himself testified that he did not consider the machine sold until he sent the invoice to appellant. If there was no agreement for sale prior to this time, the unilateral act of sending an invoice surely does not constitute a contract of sale. Since there was absolutely no evidence of an acceptance on the part of appellant, the suit was clearly barred by the Statute of Frauds and appellant should have been granted a directed verdict. As pointed out by various cases, where no evidence is submitted upon which a verdict in favor of a plaintiff could lawfully be sustained, a defendant's motion for a directed verdict should be granted. C. & H. Contractors, Inc. v. McKee, 177 So.2d 851 (Fla.App.2nd, 1965); Baro v. Wilson, 134 So.2d 843 (Fla.App.3rd, 1961). In the present case, the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence required a verdict for the appellant, and the evidence was legally insufficient to support a verdict for the appellee.
It is apparent from the instructions given to the jury by the trial court that the trial court also misconstrued the specific testimony of representatives of the appellee to the effect that the appellee did not consider that a sale had been consummated, but because the machine had not been pulled out of the bog and returned, appel-lee elected to deem the transaction as a consummated sale. Had it not been for this misconstruction of the evidence by the trial court, we feel that the trial court would have directed the verdict in favor of the appellant under the allegations of this complaint. We do think from the evidence that the appellant could probably have been held liable for some damages under a different complaint for failure to pull the machine from the bog and reasonably cooperating with the appellee in getting the machine back to appellee where it could have been sold, the appellee having testified that it had a sale for the machine to another party.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the view herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
SPECTOR, C. J., concurs.
WIGGINTON, J., dissents.