ISOT MEDICAL CENTER, CORP.,
v.
CHAPTAL GROUP, INC.,
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Real Party In Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Babul v. Golden Fuel, Inc., 990 So. 2d 680, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding: “‘[W]here. . . there is an ambiguity on the face of a contract as to the capacity of parties and their relationship with one another and the surrounding circumstances when they entered into the agreement, the court is proper in receiving parol evidence’” (quoting Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976))).
See also Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, 208 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (holding that “parol evidence is admissible to identify the real parties in interest in a transaction”); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.01 cmt. c (2006) (providing: “Unless the contract explicitly excludes the principal as a party, parol evidence is admissible to identify a principal and to subject the principal to liability on a contract made by an agent. The parol-evidence rule does not bar proof that an agent made a contract on behalf of a principal.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, 208 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Sadruddin Babul and Rahmat Barkat v. Golden Fuel, Inc., 990 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)