Orlando Partner Mike Merrill recently obtained a judgment in favor of CSK’s repair shop client following a bench trial. The Plaintiff had delivered his vehicle to CSK’s client for repair and restoration. Due to unforeseen delays in the restoration process, the Plaintiff and the repair shop entered into a written agreement to provide a timeline to complete the restoration, with penalties if the work was not timely completed. Due to continued difficulties, the restoration project was not completed within the agreed timeline. The Plaintiff filed suit for breach of the parties’ written agreement. After suit was filed, the Plaintiff came to the repair shop to collect his vehicle and the parties executed a separate document acknowledging the Plaintiff was taking his vehicle. The case proceeded to trial and the Plaintiff sought damages for all of the monies he had previously paid the Defendant for the restoration, as well as the cost of completing the restoration.
Mike argued the parties’ initial written agreement, which was drafted by the Plaintiff, unequivocally barred the Plaintiff’s claims for damages. Alternatively, Mike argued the parties’ subsequent written agreement after suit was filed was in fact a settlement agreement, which also barred the Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the repair shop.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
