TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Communications Industries, Inc. v. Tarlini

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Vincent TARLINI

Nat'l Commc'ns Indus. v. Tarlini, 367 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 2, 1979
Docket
No. KK-244
Judges
McCord, Mills, Smith
Citations
367 So. 2d 6701979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14153
Cited by 5 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee entered and won a contest for which the prize was a trip to Rome for two, including transportation, hotel accommodations, and rental car. For various disputed reasons which are not at issue on this appeal, he never took the trip to Rome and he sued the company that ran the contest. During the trial before the court below, appellee was allowed to testify, over objection, as to the amount of damages suffered, based on his conversations with travel agents.

Appellant urges that the testimony given by Mr. Tarlini as to the amount of damages was not competent evidence and, therefore, the $1,700.00 damage award was improper. We agree and reverse.

The testimony was not competent for several reasons. First of all, it was inadmissible hearsay. Secondly, it was opinion testimony by a non-expert and did not come within the exception which would allow non-experts to testify on a subject within common knowledge or about matters they themselves perceive. Finally, the rates testified to were not shown to be available within the time frame of the breach of contract. The damage must be determined as of the date of the breach of contract. Fowler v. Smoak, 57 So.2d 429 (Fla.1952).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.

McCORD, C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (in case involving canceled trip to Rome, plaintiff's testimony as to the amount of damages suffered, which was based upon his conversations with other travel agents, was inadmissible hearsay and lay opinion testimony)
    RAP v. State, 575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1982: 11991: 22024: 12025: 119822026peak 1991 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. R.A.P. v. State575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. RAP v. State575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  3. Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
  4. Celsius Holdings, Inc. v. D3M Licensing Group, LLC, Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc.No. 4D2023-0452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2024)
  5. Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Joseph Sabga, III, and Dunia SabgaNo. 3D2023-1906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2025)

Most recent

  1. Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Joseph Sabga, III, and Dunia SabgaNo. 3D2023-1906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2025)
  2. Celsius Holdings, Inc. v. D3M Licensing Group, LLC, Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc.No. 4D2023-0452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2024)
  3. RAP v. State575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  4. R.A.P. v. State575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  5. Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list