In short: In Merco Group at Akoya v. General Computer Services, 237 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), a jury awarded damages as if a condo developer had promised a $3,900 tech system for every unit. The Third DCA reversed: the contract required best efforts to sell, not a guarantee, and the jury should have heard that owners were never required to buy.
The Facts
Merco developed the Akoya, a Miami-Dade high-rise condominium completed in 2005.
In 2003 it contracted with General Computer Services for a “BeCruising” system linking units, the front desk, valet and outside services. Each system cost $3,900, collected by Merco from owners. Merco earned a $1,000 commission per sale, and commissions on cancelled sales had to be credited back.
An addendum required Merco to promote the system exclusively at the Akoya.
Few owners bought. Merco was defaulted on liability. In an earlier appeal, the court affirmed the default but sent the case back for a damages trial.
At retrial GCS calculated damages as units times price, and the jury awarded $1,360,800 for breach of contract.
The Decision
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new damages trial (Case No. 3D16-1132, Nov. 29, 2017; opinion by Judge Emas).
Read as a whole, the contract did not make Merco guarantee a sale to every unit buyer. It promised exclusive promotion and best efforts. GCS’s reading would have made the cancellation and per-sale commission terms meaningless.
A pretrial stipulation that owners did not have to buy the system was relevant to damages, and excluding it and limiting testimony about actual sales was an abuse of discretion. The court did not decide the measure of damages.
Later history: after a third trial, the court in August 2026 (Nos. 3D24-0422 and 3D24-1407) reversed the denial of remittitur because GCS showed no actual losses, ordering remittitur to about $109,000 or a new trial.
The Law
Florida courts read contracts as a whole and avoid interpretations that make provisions meaningless. A stipulation binds the parties and the court.
A default admits liability, not the amount of unliquidated damages. Damages must still be proved, and § 768.74 lets courts remit excessive verdicts.
Lessons
- Developers: be clear whether you are promising to sell, to promote, or to guarantee.
- Vendors: if you need a guaranteed minimum, write it in.
- A default is not a blank check. Contract damages still require proof of actual loss.
- Condo buyers and associations should know which developer-era service contracts bind the association.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the oral argument in the 2016 appeal, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
After a Default: $3,900 a Unit for Systems No Owner Bought? | Merco v. General Computer, 3D16-1132
Go Deeper
- Who Owns the Spa and Lobby? Condo-Hotel Rights on Appeal (North Carillon v. Z Capital)
- No Written Easement, No Parking Access: Condo Loses Driveway Claim (Miami Beach Club v. RDR)
- A Mid-Trial Jury Instruction Change and a Lost Condo Defect Case (Eloquence v. CDC Builders)
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a default judgment decide damages in Florida?
No. A default admits liability, but unliquidated damages must still be proved at trial.
What does a best-efforts clause require?
A genuine effort to perform, such as marketing a product, not a guarantee of a particular result.
Are condo developer service contracts binding on owners?
It depends on the contract and the condominium documents. In Merco, owners were not required to buy the system.
What is remittitur?
A court’s reduction of an excessive jury verdict, with the option of a new trial if the plaintiff refuses.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate, landlord-tenant, condominium and property disputes from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: the full Florida Statutes and court rules are on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
