Case Name: HAWAIIAN INN OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. ROBERT MYERS PAINTING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (two cases)
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-01-19
Citations: 363 So. 2d 125
Docket Number: Nos. FF-64 and FF-65
Parties: HAWAIIAN INN OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. ROBERT MYERS PAINTING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (two cases).
Judges: McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 363
Pages: 125–128

Head Matter:
HAWAIIAN INN OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. ROBERT MYERS PAINTING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (two cases).
Nos. FF-64 and FF-65.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 19, 1978.
Opinion on Motion for Rehearing filed Oct. 9, 1978.
William M. Barr of Raymond, Wilson, Conway, Barr & Burrows, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
William A. Parsons of Gosney, Cameron & Parsons, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By these consolidated appeals we are requested to review final judgments entered in two separate cases, each judgment being in favor of Robert Myers Painting, Inc. and against Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. and Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc. Each judgment contained additional provisions declaring mechanic's liens against properties owned by Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. and providing for the foreclosure thereof.
The relevant facts are: Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc., owner, entered into a contract with Snead's Construction Company as general contractor, to construct in accordance with plans and specifications provided by the owner's architect, three motels, only two of which are involved in this appeal. The painting of the motels was subcontracted to Robert Myers Painting, Inc. Without either the customary change order, authorization from the architect or authorization from the owner the general contractor, Snead's Construction Company and the subcontractor Robert Myers Painting, Inc., agreed upon the use of a paint, less expensive, different from that specified in the specifications. The specifications were clear and specific and did not contain the provision sometimes found for the use of materials "substantially equivalent or better". The general contractor, Snead's Construction Company, abandoned the projects whereupon Harkness-Pinkerton took over as general contractor. Robert Myers Painting, Inc. negotiated subcontract agreements with the new general contractor. The specifications (insofar as here material) remained unchanged. Neither did the subcontractor change the paint being used, which, as above stated, was not that called for by the specifications.
Appellee urges that the general contractor is the agent of the owner and that therefore the owner is bound by any changes agreed to by the general contractor. There is no evidence in the record before us to establish such agency.
When an owner avails himself of the services of an architect for the purpose of preparing plans and specifications and thereafter enters into a contract for construction in accordance with those plans and specifications the owner is entitled, in the absence of an agreed change, acquiescence or estoppel, neither of which are sustained by the evidence sub judice, to expect and require construction in accordance with the plans and specifications. It being clear from the record that the paint (and other materials, specifically caulking) used by the painting subcontractor was not as specified we find insufficient basis for the assertion and foreclosure of mechanic's liens: The portions of the final judgments so providing, in favor of appellee Robert Myers Painting, Inc. and against appellant Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. are reversed.
The relationship between the general contractor and subcontractor is quite another matter. The general contractor entered into a contract with the owner to complete the construction in accordance with • the plans and specifications. The owner was entitled to rely upon that contract. The general contractor, on the other hand, selected the subcontractors. It is the obligation of the general contractor to assure himself that the subcontractors are performing their contracts in accordance with the owner's requirements as contained in the plans and specifications. Appellant Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc. failed so to do. It was fully aware of the requirements of the specifications, that there had beep no change order and that the materials being used by the subcontractor were not as required by the specifications. There is sufficient evidence in the record, though contradicted, apparently believed by the trier of fact, to sustain the final judgment in favor of Robert Myers Painting, Inc. against Harkness-Pinkerton, Inc. Those portions of the final judgments are therefore affirmed.
The motion for attorney's fees filed by appellee pursuant to Section 713.29 is denied.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.