Court Opinion

ID: 9408860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 21:01:22.725269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.395869
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10305    Document: 57-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10305
                          ____________________

       OELRICH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
                                            Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-
                                                              Appellee,
       versus
       PRC PRECAST, LLC,

                                          Defendant-Counter Claimant-
                                                           Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ
USCA11 Case: 22-10305      Document: 57-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10305

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judge.
       PER CURIAM:
               In this breach of contract action under Florida law, PRC Pre-
       cast, LLC (PRC) appeals the district court’s ﬁnal judgment, after a
       bench trial, ﬁnding that Oelrich Construction, Inc. (Oelrich)
       properly terminated the parties’ contract. PRC further appeals the
       district court’s calculation of damages. After careful review, and
       with the beneﬁt of oral argument, we ﬁnd no reversible error.
                                      I.
               Oelrich was a subcontractor in a federal boiler-plant project
       in Gainesville, Florida. Oelrich was hired by the general contractor
       to construct the shell of the plant. Oelrich subcontracted with PRC
       to manufacture and install precast concrete slabs for the shell. A
       dispute arose from PRC’s failure to timely manufacture the slabs.
       The parties kept extending the deadlines in the contract and, even-
       tually, PRC expressed uncertainty about complying with the dead-
       lines. After several delays, back-and-forth, and extended deadlines,
       Oelrich terminated the contract and hired a substitute to complete
       the job. Oelrich sent PRC an email asking for notiﬁcation if the un-
       derstanding was incorrect, and PRC failed to respond.
              In an appeal from a bench trial, we review conclusions of
       law de novo. PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp., 924 F.3d 1159,
       1165 (11th Cir. 2019). We review factual ﬁndings under a clear error
       standard of review. Id. “A factual ﬁnding is clearly erroneous ‘when
USCA11 Case: 22-10305      Document: 57-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-10305               Opinion of the Court                          3

       although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
       entire evidence is left with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction that a
       mistake has been committed.’” Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Inﬁrmary
       Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Holton v. City
       of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005)).
                                          II.
               PRC ﬁrst argues that Oelrich breached the contract ﬁrst by
       failing to satisfy three invoices for PRC’s materials, excusing PRC’s
       further performance. But the district court determined that PRC
       waived Oelrich’s breach by thereafter accepting delayed payments,
       failing to inform Oelrich that it was suspending work because of
       the breach, and continuing to participate in arranging new installa-
       tion dates. These ﬁndings are supported by the record. PRC has not
       shown clear error in the district court’s factual ﬁndings that support
       the determinations that PRC’s failure to perform was not excused
       by Oelrich’s prior breach and that PRC breached the contract by
       non-performance.
             PRC also argues that Oelrich failed to give twenty-four
       hours’ prior notice of termination or a formal opportunity to cure,
       as provided in the parties’ contract. But the district court deter-
       mined that it was too late to cure performance and, given the cir-
       cumstances at the time, PRC would have been unable to complete
       performance. Consequently, notice for an opportunity to cure was
USCA11 Case: 22-10305          Document: 57-1           Date Filed: 07/13/2023           Page: 4 of 6

       4                           Opinion of the Court                          22-10305

       not material as it would have been futile. 1 Upon consideration of
       the record, we cannot say that this determination is based on
       clearly erroneous ﬁndings.
                                                 III.
              In a separate order, PRC was ordered to pay $200,188.76 in
       damages. The court found that Oelrich was entitled to (1) 100% of
       the replacement contractor’s setup price: $106,749.00; (2) 47% of
       the new contractor’s manufacture price: $23,519.00; (3) the amount
       by which the replacement contractor’s installation price exceeded
       PRC’s: $21,083.00; (4) the damages caused by having to hire the
       new contractor as a replacement: $151,351.00; (5) and delay dam-
       ages: $78,235.76. After applying oﬀsets of $10,365.00 for improp-
       erly withheld retainage and $19,033.00 for the cost of disposing of
       materials already made by PRC, the district court arrived at the
       $200,188.76 total.
             PRC argues on appeal that the district court mis-calculated
       damages for essentially the following three reasons: (1) damages
       were not proven by a reasonable certainty; (2) the damages should
       have been limited to the diﬀerence in price between PRC’s contract
       and the replacement contractor’s price, and (3) Oelrich did not
       prove “delay” damages with substantial evidence.

       1“[T]he law does not require that a party to a contract take action that would
       clearly be futile.” Waksman Enters., Inc. v. Or. Props., Inc., 862 So. 2d 35, 43 (Fla.
       Dist. Ct. App. 2003).
USCA11 Case: 22-10305      Document: 57-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-10305               Opinion of the Court                         5

              We ﬁnd no reversible error in the district court’s calculation
       of damages. All that is required is that “the evidence aﬀords a suf-
       ﬁcient basis for estimating an amount in money with reasonable
       certainty.” United Steel & Strip Corp. v. Monex Corp., 310 So. 2d 339,
       342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975). “Where damages cannot be precisely
       determined, the trial judge is vested with reasonable discretion in
       making the award of damages.” Clearwater Assocs. v. Hicks Laundry
       Equip. Corp., 433 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App 1983). The district
       court’s ﬁndings upon which it based its damages calculation are not
       clearly erroneous, and the court calculated damages within the
       bounds of its discretion.
                                      IV.
             We thus aﬃrm the judgments of the district court.
             AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10305        Document: 57-1         Date Filed: 07/13/2023        Page: 6 of 6

       22-10305             NEWSOM, J., dissenting in part                          1

       NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
              With one quibble, I concur in the Court’s opinion.
              Here’s the quibble: I think the district court awarded Oelrich
       too much in manufacturing damages. It gave Oelrich $23,519, re-
       lieving the company of all but $4,516.39 of the cost of the manu-
       facturing work left incomplete by PRC’s breach.1 Had PRC not
       breached, though, Oelrich would have paid it $20,415.39 to ﬁnish
       that work. The district court’s award thus left Oelrich paying less
       for manufacturing than it would have paid had PRC performed.
              As I understand things, that’s not lawful. A party who has
       suﬀered a breach of contract “is not entitled to be placed, because
       of that breach, in a position better than that which he would have
       occupied had the contract been performed.” School Bd. v. Pierce
       Goodwin Alexander & Linville, 137 So. 3d 1059, 1070 (Fla. 4th Dist.
       Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 49 So. 3d 299,
       305 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2010)). The district court’s award im-
       permissibly put Oelrich in a position better than it would have been
       in had PRC performed. I would reverse to the extent that it did so.

       1 $4,516.39 is what Oelrich paid PRC for manufacturing work that PRC never
       finished. Through October 2019, PRC billed $27,538 in manufacturing costs.
       See Doc. 55-2 at 4; Doc. 96 at 11. PRC effectively paid those bills—because the
       district court offset Oelrich’s damages award by the unpaid portion. See Doc.
       98 at 7. The 53% of the manufacturing that PRC completed cost $23,021.61—
       53% of the total manufacturing cost, $43,437. See Doc. 98 at 2–3, 4. The dif-
       ference between these figures, therefore—$4,516.39—is all that Oelrich actu-
       ally paid toward the uncompleted portion.