Filed: Oct. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10588 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-61434-WJZ PAUL DANIEC, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BOATARAMA, INC., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 21, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 2 of
Summary: Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10588 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-61434-WJZ PAUL DANIEC, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BOATARAMA, INC., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 21, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 2 of 8..
More
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10588
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-61434-WJZ
PAUL DANIEC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BOATARAMA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 21, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 2 of 8
Boatarama, Inc. (Boatarama) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion
and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in an action for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment brought by Paul Daniec. Boatarama alleges that
Daniec failed to present sufficient competent evidence from which the jury could
calculate damages with reasonable certainty. For the reasons stated below, we
affirm.
I.
The present dispute stems from a 2007 agreement between Daniec and
Boatarama for the purchase of a 56 foot Navigator Express Cruiser Yacht (the
Yacht). Briefly stated, after unsuccessful attempts to sell the Yacht through its
own website and at boat shows, Boatarama listed the vessel for sale in June 2007
on the online auction site, eBay, Inc. (eBay). In the online listing, Boatarama
indicated that it was selling the Yacht “to mitigate damages.”
On June 10, 2007, Daniec submitted the winning bid of $376,099. Pursuant
to eBay’s terms and conditions, “[a] 20 percent down-payment is due at the close
of auction in the form of cashier’s check or money order or wired funds with the
balance due in ten days.” Because Daniec was in Poland at the close of the
auction, Boatarama agreed to extend the deadline for receipt of the deposit to June
12. The parties subsequently entered into a written contract on June 12 for the sale
of the Yacht for $376,469, which included a deposit of $75,000 due that same day.
2
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 3 of 8
After Daniec failed to timely tender the $75,000 deposit, Boatarama sent
Daniec an e-mail on June 13, informing him that he was in default. It also sent out
second-chance offers to other participants in the eBay auction. On June 14,
Daniec’s bank wired the $75,000 deposit to Boatarama. Later that same day
Daniec flew to Florida to inspect the Yacht and the parties agreed that Daniec
would pay the remaining balance by June 22. Daniec then learned that Boatarama
did not have clear title, as represented in the eBay auction, because GE
Corporation (GE) had a lien on the Yacht. Daniec negotiated with Boatarama to
pay an additional $25,000 to GE to clear the lien in exchange for more time to
complete the purchase. Despite repeated attempts to contact Boatarama, Daniec
never received the necessary wiring instructions for GE.
On June 28, Daniec learned that the Yacht had been sold to another buyer
for $350,000. On June 30, Daniec e-mailed Wilfred Bost, Boatarama’s owner and
president, and demanded the return of his $75,000 deposit. That same day, a
Boatarama employee responded, “Please do not write us anymore, YOU
DEFAULTED UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF E-BAY . . . .”
Daniec filed suit against Boatarama in June 2011, alleging breach of contract
and unjust enrichment. Daniec sought compensatory damages equal to the fair
market value of the Yacht less the contract price, arguing that he did not receive
the benefit of the bargain he contracted for with Boatarama. In its answer,
3
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 4 of 8
Boatarama classified the sale of the Yacht to the other buyer as necessary to
mitigate damages incurred from Daniec’s alleged breach of contract.
At trial, Daniec opined that the Yacht was worth “anywhere between
800,000 and a million dollars.” In response, Bost testified that the Yacht was sold
in 2007 for $350,000 on eBay, reflecting the true market value of the vessel. At
the close of Daniec’s case-in-chief, and again at the close of all evidence,
Boatarama moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a),
arguing that Daniec had failed to present sufficient evidence of the fair market
value of the Yacht at the time of the breach in order for the jury to calculate his
benefit-of-the-bargain damages. The district court denied Boatarama’s motions.
The jury found in favor of Daniec and awarded damages of $225,000. Boatarama
then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the same ground,
which the court also denied. The instant appeal followed.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion and renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law. Etienne v. Inter-Cnty. Sec. Corp., 173
F.3d 1372, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). “If the facts and inferences overwhelmingly
favor one party, such that reasonable people could only arrive at one verdict, then
the motion should have been granted.”
Id. As for credibility determinations, “[i]t
is the jury’s task—not ours—to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and
4
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 5 of 8
determine the credibility of witnesses.” Brochu v. City of Riviera Beach, 304 F.3d
1144, 1154-55 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted).
III.
On appeal, Boatarama does not challenge the jury’s finding that a breach
occurred. Rather, it argues that the district court erred by denying its motion and
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law because Daniec failed to present
sufficient competent evidence from which the jury could ascertain the market value
of the Yacht in order to calculate damages. 1
Contract law is designed to protect the expectations of the contracting
parties. MCA Television Ltd. v. Public Interest Corp., 171 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th
Cir. 1999). “When a contract is breached, an injured party can look to the legal
system for help in achieving the position he or she would have occupied upon the
performance of the promise—that is, for his or her ‘expectation interest,’ otherwise
known as ‘the benefit of the bargain.’” See
id. The parties agree that Florida law
governs the instant dispute grounded in diversity jurisdiction. See Horowitch v.
Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.,
645 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (“As a federal
court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, we apply the substantive law of the forum
1
Contrary to Daniec’s contention, Boatarama preserved its claim concerning damages. In
moving for judgment as a matter of law at trial, Boatarama argued that Daniec had failed to
prove damages with “a reasonable degree of certainty.” See Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
394
F.3d 891, 903 (11th Cir. 2004) (“This Court repeatedly has made clear that any renewal of a
motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) must be based upon the same grounds
as the original request for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a) at the close of the
evidence and prior to the case being submitted to the jury.”).
5
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 6 of 8
state, in this case Florida, alongside federal procedural law.”). Under Florida law,
“[w]here the breach consists in the failure of the seller to deliver the goods, the
measure of damages is ordinarily the difference between the contract price and the
market price of the goods at the time and place of delivery.” Briggs v. Mann, 116
So. 2, 3 (Fla. 1928). Damages for breach of contract are to be measured from the
date of the breach. CIMA Capital Partners, LLC v. PH Cellular, Inc.,
69 So. 3d
293, 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010).
Boatarama argues that Daniec failed to present any evidence, absent his own
speculative opinion, as to the Yacht’s value. It contends that Bost’s testimony
regarding the sales history of the yacht from 2004 to 2007 did not constitute
sufficient evidence of the Yacht’s value at the time of the breach. We disagree.
The jury’s award of $225,000 in damages—reflecting the difference between the
contract price and an assigned value of approximately $600,000 for the Yacht—is
supported by the evidence. At trial, Bost described that he had been in the boating
industry for over 55 years. Bost testified that Boatarama previously had offered
the Yacht for sale at various boat shows ranging from $800,000 to over $1 million.
See Horn v. Corkland Corp., 518 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (noting
that “under Florida law an owner of property can testify as to his opinion of the
value of the property”); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Pro-tech Conditioning &
Heating,
866 So. 2d 700, 702 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (“The rule allowing an
6
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 7 of 8
owner to testify regarding the value of his property is based on the owner’s
presumed familiarity with the characteristics of the property, his knowledge or
acquaintance with its uses and purposes, and his experience in dealing with it.”).
At trial, Bost opined that the vessel was valued in excess of $400,000 at the
time of the auction in 2007. He also described that: (1) Boatarama paid its
lienholder $598,400 for the Yacht; (2) the wholesale price for the Yacht was
$600,000, and Boatarama typically sold boats in excess of their retail prices;
(3) Boatarama had entered into a purchase agreement with a potential buyer for
$600,000 in late 2005/early 2006, but the deal fell through; (4) Boatarama
represented in the eBay auction that the Yacht always had been shown at a boat
show special of $882,000; and (5) a similar used boat had sold for $695,000.
Based on these estimates, the jury’s award was not based on an error of law, nor
was it against the weight and preponderance of the evidence. See Myers v.
TooJay’s Mgmt. Corp., 640 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[A] motion for
judgment as a matter of law may be granted only if after examining all evidence in
a light most favorable to the non-moving party we determine there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party.”) (quotation
marks omitted)).
Boatarama maintains that the fair market value of the Yacht should have
been set at $350,000, the amount it ultimately sold for to a second-chance buyer on
7
Case: 14-10588 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 8 of 8
eBay. But the final sale price does not necessarily constitute a reliable indicator of
the Yacht’s fair market value. At trial, Bost testified that the transaction
represented a “firesale” and that he was “in a hurry to sell the [Yacht] for far less
than it was worth” because Boatarama needed to offload the vessel from its
inventory. See United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546, 551 (1973) (explaining
that fair market value is “the price at which the property would change hands
between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion
to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.”).
Additionally, the eBay advertisement for the sale specifically noted that the sale
was being orchestrated “to mitigate damages,” thus indicating that Boatarama was
not a “willing seller” and the $350,000 sale price did not equate with the fair
market value of the Yacht. Id.; see also ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Seay,
347 So. 2d
1024, 1027 (Fla. 1977) (holding that public auction did not amount to a fair
valuation where the seller’s ability to renege allowed the seller to undervalue the
property and the prevailing uncertainty led to disinterested buyers).
In sum, the evidence provided a sufficient legal basis for the jury’s award.
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Boatarama’s motion and renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.
8
