Montero v. Compugraphic Corp.
Docket: 87-1342
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 4, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a summary judgment favoring Compugraphic Corporation in the case of Juan E. Montero v. Compugraphic Corporation. Montero, a Chilean businessman, had purchased a printer in September 1981 for $24,251.76, relying on Compugraphic's promise to deliver it with necessary electrical modifications, for which he paid an additional $1,000. The sales contract's effectiveness hinged on acceptance by Compugraphic’s home office and limited the timeframe to bring a legal action to one year. Compugraphic denied the existence of a contract and claimed the statute of limitations barred Montero's claims, which included fraudulent inducement and rescission. Montero sought to amend his complaint after discovering that the contract was never accepted by Compugraphic. The court found that Compugraphic's defense was flawed; if the contract was never accepted, the limitation period could not be enforced. Compugraphic's contradictory positions—that there was no contract while simultaneously arguing the limitation provision—were deemed inconsistent and legally untenable. The court also noted that if fraud was alleged, the limitation period would be ineffective. The appellate court ruled that Montero should have been granted leave to amend his complaint, as amendments should be allowed freely unless there is evidence of abuse. Consequently, the court reversed both the summary judgment and the denial of Montero's motion to amend, remanding the case for further proceedings. Montero also claimed to have discovered a second contract involving a different buyer, which did not conform to his specifications, but this was not a basis for the summary judgment.