Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you paid a company for a service, but they didn't finish the job and wouldn't give your money back. This court said that sometimes, even if the original agreement wasn't clear enough to be a strict contract, you might still be able to get your money back if the company unfairly benefited from your payment without doing the work. It's like saying the company can't just keep your money if they didn't hold up their end, even if the paperwork was a bit messy.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract claim due to indefiniteness, reinforcing the need for clear terms in executory contracts. However, it reversed dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, allowing the plaintiff to pursue recovery of the deposit. This highlights the importance of pleading alternative theories, particularly when contract formation or enforceability is questionable, and signals that courts may be more willing to entertain unjust enrichment claims to prevent a windfall for a party who received a benefit without fulfilling their obligations.

For Law Students

This case tests the enforceability of indefinite contracts and the viability of unjust enrichment as an alternative remedy. The court found the contract too vague for breach of contract but allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed, demonstrating that a plaintiff can recover for benefits conferred even if a formal contract fails, provided the defendant was unjustly enriched. This fits within contract law's broader doctrine of quasi-contract and raises exam issues regarding the elements of unjust enrichment and its relationship to breach of contract.

Newsroom Summary

A state appellate court ruled that a homeowner may be able to recover a deposit from a roofing company, even if the initial contract was too vague to be legally binding. The decision allows the homeowner to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment, potentially preventing the company from unfairly keeping the money.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on an incorrect application of the statute of limitations to claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Rule Statements

A cause of action accrues when the claim upon which it is based could have been brought, meaning when the conditions precedent to a right of action have occurred.

In the context of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, a claim accrues when the consumer discovers or reasonably should have discovered the deceptive act or practice.

Scenario: You paid a contractor a deposit for home renovations, but they did very little work and then stopped responding, refusing to return your deposit. The contract you signed was a bit vague about the exact scope of work or timeline.

Your Rights: You have the right to potentially recover your deposit if the contractor cannot show they provided value or if they were unjustly enriched by keeping your money without completing the agreed-upon (even if vaguely defined) services.

What To Do: If you are in this situation, gather all documentation related to the agreement and payments. You may be able to file a lawsuit seeking recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment, even if a breach of contract claim is difficult to prove due to the contract's vagueness.

Is it legal for a company to keep my deposit if they don't complete the work I paid for, even if the contract was a little unclear?

It depends. If the contract was so unclear that it's not legally enforceable as a contract, the company might not be liable for breach of contract. However, they may still be legally required to return your deposit if keeping it would unjustly enrich them, meaning they benefited unfairly without providing the service.

This ruling applies in Florida, as it comes from a Florida appellate court.

For Homeowners who hire contractors

Homeowners may have a stronger claim to recover deposits or payments made for services that were not adequately performed, even if the initial contract was poorly drafted. This ruling provides an avenue for recourse when a contractor fails to deliver, preventing them from unfairly profiting from incomplete work.

For Contractors and service providers

Contractors need to ensure their contracts are clear and specific regarding scope of work, timelines, and deliverables. Vague contracts expose them to potential unjust enrichment claims, even if a breach of contract claim is dismissed, making it harder to retain payments for incomplete or poorly executed services.

Q: What is Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. about?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on February 5, 2026.

Q: What court decided Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. decided?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. was decided on February 5, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

The citation for Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for this decision?

The case is Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp., decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District. The citation is not provided in the summary, but it is an appellate court decision reviewing a trial court's ruling.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the lawsuit?

The parties were the plaintiff, Marc Kemper, who initiated the lawsuit, and the defendant, Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp., the company that allegedly failed to perform contracted services.

Q: What was the nature of the dispute between Marc Kemper and Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

Marc Kemper sued Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Kemper alleged that the company did not complete contracted work and refused to return a deposit he had paid.

Q: Which court issued this decision, and what was its role?

The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, issued this decision. This court reviewed the trial court's dismissal of Kemper's claims and affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim while reversing the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.

Q: When was the decision rendered?

The specific date of the appellate court's decision is not provided in the summary, but it is a recent ruling reviewing a prior trial court judgment.

Q: Is Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. published?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

The court issued a mixed ruling in Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.. Key holdings: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the contract lacked essential terms, such as a specific completion date and a detailed scope of work, rendering it too indefinite to be enforced.; The court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case by alleging that the defendant received a benefit (the deposit) and retained it without providing the contracted-for services.; The court held that a party may pursue an unjust enrichment claim even when an express contract exists, provided the contract is found to be unenforceable or invalid.; The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim at the pleading stage, as the plaintiff's allegations, if proven, could entitle them to restitution.; The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the unjust enrichment claim, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim for the return of the deposit..

Q: Why is Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. important?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision clarifies that even if a contract is too indefinite to be enforced as a breach of contract claim, a party may still have recourse through an unjust enrichment claim to recover payments made. It highlights the importance of clearly defined terms in contracts to avoid litigation over enforceability.

Q: What precedent does Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. set?

Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the contract lacked essential terms, such as a specific completion date and a detailed scope of work, rendering it too indefinite to be enforced. (2) The court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case by alleging that the defendant received a benefit (the deposit) and retained it without providing the contracted-for services. (3) The court held that a party may pursue an unjust enrichment claim even when an express contract exists, provided the contract is found to be unenforceable or invalid. (4) The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim at the pleading stage, as the plaintiff's allegations, if proven, could entitle them to restitution. (5) The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the unjust enrichment claim, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim for the return of the deposit.

Q: What are the key holdings in Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

1. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the contract lacked essential terms, such as a specific completion date and a detailed scope of work, rendering it too indefinite to be enforced. 2. The court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case by alleging that the defendant received a benefit (the deposit) and retained it without providing the contracted-for services. 3. The court held that a party may pursue an unjust enrichment claim even when an express contract exists, provided the contract is found to be unenforceable or invalid. 4. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim at the pleading stage, as the plaintiff's allegations, if proven, could entitle them to restitution. 5. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the unjust enrichment claim, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim for the return of the deposit.

Q: What cases are related to Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

Precedent cases cited or related to Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.: Hospice of the Florida Keys, Inc. v. Shah, 959 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Commerce P'ship v. Equity Std. Props., Ltd., 695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Q: What was the appellate court's decision regarding the breach of contract claim?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court found that the contract between Kemper and Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. was too indefinite to be legally enforceable.

Q: Why did the court find the contract to be too indefinite for breach of contract?

The court determined the contract lacked sufficient certainty regarding essential terms, making it impossible to ascertain the exact obligations of each party or to determine if a breach had occurred. This indefiniteness meant the contract could not be enforced.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply to the breach of contract claim?

The court applied the standard for contract enforceability, which requires terms to be sufficiently definite. If essential terms are missing or too vague, a contract is considered too indefinite and cannot form the basis for a breach of contract claim.

Q: What was the appellate court's decision regarding the unjust enrichment claim?

The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. This means Kemper's unjust enrichment claim can proceed to be heard on its merits.

Q: What is unjust enrichment, and why was it relevant here?

Unjust enrichment is a legal principle where one party is enriched at the expense of another, and it would be unfair to allow the enriched party to keep the benefit without paying for it. Kemper argued he was entitled to recover his deposit under this theory because the company did not complete the work.

Q: What evidence did Kemper present for his unjust enrichment claim?

Kemper presented evidence that he paid a deposit to Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. and that the company failed to complete the contracted work. This suggests the company received a benefit (the deposit) without providing the agreed-upon services.

Q: What is the burden of proof for an unjust enrichment claim?

For an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff typically must prove that the defendant received a benefit, that the benefit was obtained at the plaintiff's expense, and that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it. Kemper needed to show these elements to potentially recover his deposit.

Q: What does it mean for a contract to be 'too indefinite'?

A contract is considered 'too indefinite' when it lacks essential terms such as price, subject matter, or quantity, or when these terms are so vague that a court cannot determine the parties' obligations or enforce the agreement. This prevents a finding of breach of contract.

Q: How does unjust enrichment differ from breach of contract?

Breach of contract requires a valid, enforceable contract that has been violated. Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies when there is no enforceable contract, but one party has unfairly benefited at another's expense, preventing them from keeping that benefit.

Q: How does Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. affect me?

This decision clarifies that even if a contract is too indefinite to be enforced as a breach of contract claim, a party may still have recourse through an unjust enrichment claim to recover payments made. It highlights the importance of clearly defined terms in contracts to avoid litigation over enforceability. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does this ruling affect consumers who have paid deposits for home improvement services?

This ruling suggests that if a home improvement contract is vague, consumers may not be able to sue for breach of contract if the work isn't done. However, they may still have a claim for unjust enrichment to recover any deposit paid if the contractor fails to perform.

Q: What are the implications for contractors like Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

Contractors must ensure their contracts are clear, specific, and contain all essential terms. Vague contracts expose them to potential liability under unjust enrichment claims, even if a breach of contract claim is dismissed.

Q: What is the practical impact of affirming the dismissal of the breach of contract claim?

The practical impact is that Marc Kemper cannot pursue damages for the failure to complete the work based on the contract itself. He must rely on the separate legal theory of unjust enrichment to seek recovery of his deposit.

Q: What is the practical impact of reversing the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim?

The practical impact is that Kemper's case for recovering his deposit will now proceed. He has the opportunity to present evidence and argue that Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. was unjustly enriched by keeping his deposit without performing the services.

Q: What is the potential monetary value at stake in this case?

The summary does not specify the exact dollar amount of the deposit Marc Kemper paid. However, the unjust enrichment claim is focused on recovering this deposit from Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of contract law?

This case illustrates the importance of contract definiteness in contract law. It highlights the distinction between enforcing a contract as written and seeking equitable remedies like unjust enrichment when a contract fails due to vagueness.

Q: Are there any landmark cases that discuss contract indefiniteness?

Yes, numerous cases discuss contract definiteness. For example, the principle that essential terms must be certain is a long-standing doctrine in contract law, often traced back to common law principles requiring a 'meeting of the minds' on key aspects of an agreement.

Q: What was the docket number in Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp.?

The docket number for Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. is 4D2024-2728. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What was the trial court's initial ruling on Kemper's claims?

The trial court initially dismissed both of Marc Kemper's claims: the breach of contract claim and the unjust enrichment claim. The appellate court reviewed these dismissals.

Q: What happens next in the Marc Kemper v. Infinity Windows Doors & Roofing Corp. case?

Since the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, the case will likely be remanded back to the trial court. Kemper will have the opportunity to present his case for unjust enrichment and attempt to recover his deposit.

Q: Could Marc Kemper have amended his complaint to fix the breach of contract issue?

The summary does not indicate if Kemper sought to amend his complaint. However, if the underlying contract is fundamentally too indefinite, amending the complaint might not cure the defect for a breach of contract claim, but it could strengthen the unjust enrichment argument.

Q: What is the significance of the appellate court 'affirming' one claim and 'reversing' another?

Affirming means the appellate court agreed with the trial court's decision on that specific claim (breach of contract). Reversing means the appellate court disagreed with the trial court's decision on that claim (unjust enrichment) and sent it back for further proceedings.