
    FUTURO PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. JACKSON’S/BYRONS ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee.
    No. 71-199.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 30, 1971.
    Howard R. Hirsch, for appellant.
    Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Nie-moeller & Flynn, Miami, for appellee.
    Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

PEARSON, Judge

(dissenting).

A dissent to a per curiam affirmance is a singularly unproductive act. Nevertheless, my opinion that this appeal is governed by the rule stated in Mills v. Krauss, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 817 is so strong that I feel it should be noted. The rule is stated:

“The rule is clear beyond argument that one who undertakes by contract to do for another a given thing cannot excuse himself to the other for a faulty performance, or a failure to perform, by showing that he has engaged another to perform in his place, and that the fault or failure is that of another or independent contractor.”  