Case Name: George P. WATERS and Charles F. Duchein, Appellants, v. KEY COLONY EAST, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-04-19
Citations: 345 So. 2d 367
Docket Number: No. 76-835
Parties: George P. WATERS and Charles F. Duchein, Appellants, v. KEY COLONY EAST, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 345
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
George P. WATERS and Charles F. Duchein, Appellants, v. KEY COLONY EAST, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 76-835.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 19, 1977.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1977.
Horan & Finley, Key West, for appellants.
A. M. Schwitalla, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial judge refused to return a down payment or deposit to a prospective purchaser under a deposit receipt contract involving real property, and refused to award the seller damages beyond the sum fixed as liquidated damages under the agreement. We affirm.
A party to a contract cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing to avoid responsibility thereunder. Walker v. Chancey, 96 Fla. 82, 117 So. 705 (1928); Chatlos v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., 183 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966); Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Company, 512 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1975); 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, § 147, 148. A party to a contract, who agrees to accept a sum as liquidated damages, cannot sue for actual damages. Stone, Sand & Gravel Company v. United States, 234 U.S. 270, 34 S.Ct. 865, 58 L.Ed. 1308 (1914); Coca-Cola Bottling Works (Thomas) Inc. v. Hazard Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 450 S.W.2d 515 (Ct.App.Ky.1970); Ashley v. Lance, 80 Wash.2d 274, 493 P. 2d 1242 (1972); 9A Fla.Jur., Damages, § 115; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages, § 235; Cf. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 285 So.2d 619 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1973).
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.