LOVE=S AUTO SALES, INC.,

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Michael Raiden presiding. Love=s Auto Sales, Inc. (Love=s) brought suit in county court alleging breach of contract and seeking restitution against United Security Alliance, Inc. (United) for United=s failure to perform under the contract. United appeals the ruling of the county court. Love=s moved to dismiss the appeal arguing that the absence of an appellate record precludes review. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(1). The ruling of the county court is affirmed.

The following recitation of facts is taken from the trial judge=s memorandum in support of the final judgment. United contacted Mel Love, owner of Love=s Auto Sales, regarding a monitored security system. Under the terms of the agreement, United sold the system to Green Tree Vendor Service and Love=s leased the system from Green Tree. Love=s executed a 36 month Anoncancelable@ lease with Green Tree for the equipment, and paid $195.95 in monthly lease payments to Green Tree. A 36 month warranty agreement between United and Love=s allowed United the option to Afix or replace any defective equipment.@ Under the warranty agreement, United=s liability was limited to Athe total cost of furnishing a replacement for any defective component.@

Love=s repeatedly notified United of varied problems with the system from August 1997 through December 1997. The trial judge found expressly that the video monitor installed by United never worked properly. The trial judge also found that because the system was inadequate from the beginning, and United took too long to arrive at a solution, Love=s was justified in terminating its business relationship with United. In awarding damages, the trial judge acknowledged that the contract terms expressly limit damages, but stated:

It [the limitation provision] does not permit either party to ignore its respective obligations with impunity. . . . Plaintiff is within its rights to consider the contract void and to insist that it be placed in the same position it was in immediately before making the agreement. The damages as calculated by Plaintiff=s seem the best manner of doing so.

The decisions of a trial court are presumptively correct. Chiles v. State Employees Attorney=s Guild, 734 So. 2d 1030, 1034 (Fla. 1999). To succeed on appeal, Appellant must demonstrate reversible error. Id. However, the absence of a trial transcript complicates United=s efforts to demonstrate reversible error. See Kirchinger v. Kirchinger, 546 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), (holding that the absence of an adequate record requires affirmance); Estopian v. State, 710 So. 2d 994 (Fla 2d DCA 1998) (holding that pervasive errors and inaccuracies in record preclude meaningful appellate review); Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Applegate, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1980) (holding that inadequate appellate record mandates affirmance).

Appellate review is not precluded solely due to the absence of a trial transcript. See Blaloch v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (conducting review of errors on face of record despite absence of transcript); Rozier v. State, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3^rd DCA 1996) (conducting review of trial minutes despite absence of transcript); Mercer v. State, 638 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (sustaining conviction based on evidence contained in partial transcript of damaged trial video). Although the Florida Supreme Court has held that the absence of a trial transcript can preclude meaningful appellate review, Applegate, 377 So.2d 1152, other record documents can provide the basis for meaningful review. See Blaloch, 707 So. 2d 738; Rozier, 669 So. 2d 353; Mercer, 638 So. 2d 534. The trial judge=s memorandum in support of the final judgment provides clear explanation of the facts, and reasoning underlying his decision. It provides the basis of this court=s review.

United argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by concluding that the nature of United=s breach justified an award of damages that exceeded the limitation clause of the warranty agreement. In support of their position, United asserts that the express language of the limitation clause precludes an award of damages that exceeds replacement costs. The limitation clause is enforceable against Love=s because the contract itself is otherwise valid. Finally, the limitation clause is independent of any repair or replacement remedy and is enforceable although the repair or replace remedy failed in its essential purpose.

United presented documents and testimony which established several of the trial judge=s findings. United agreed that the system had an ongoing problem with interference from nearby microwave towers. Evidence established, and United did not Aseriously dispute@ the fact that the image quality was inadequate. United=s expert testified that the poor picture quality resulted from microwave interference. United=s service request and repair records show that the problem persisted from late August 1997 through December 1997. The trial judge concluded that United=s failure to perform under the express terms of the warranty agreement constituted breach. There is no error in this analysis.

A party who promises but fails to perform under the terms of a contract, and who thereby causes the other party to rely to his detriment on the promise, may not seek the aid of the courts in enforcing those terms of the contract which are beneficial to the promisor. White v. Pinellas County, 174 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); 185 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1966), (quashed on other grounds): Rest. 2d ' 90. The 36 month Anoncancelable@ lease agreement with Green Tree provided no warranty of fitness. The trial judge concluded that United furnished Love=s with a defective system, refused Love=s repeated requests to repair or replace the system as required by the express terms of the warranty, yet attempted to enforce the limitation clause of the contract. This court agrees that Love=s is entitled to be placed in the position it enjoyed prior to executing the contracts.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Love=s motion to dismiss is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the ruling of the trial court is AFFIRMED.