JOHNNY MURRAY, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• de Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church, 953 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
  …. 2d 277, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), modified on other grounds, [*682] 468 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1985); accord Irby v. Mem’l Healthcare Group,- Inc., 901 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Allen v. Berry, 765 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Drost v. Hill, 639 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); 777 Flagler Co. v. Amerifirst Bank, 559 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Balter v. Pan Am. Bank of Hialeah, 383 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Brown v. Dobry, 311 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). “In order for a contract to be subj…
• DiMASE v. Aquamar 176, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
  …d writing.” Id. But in our case, the DiMases are not seeking to enforce the unsigned Addendum. They are simply attempting to show that there was no meeting of the minds and, therefore, no enforceable contract by either party. See also Drost v. Hill, 639 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (Where it appears that the parties are continuing to negotiate as to essential terms of an agreement, there can be no meeting of the minds.). Almost a century ago, the Florida Supreme Court explained this principle as mutual…
• Allen v. Ophelia Berry, 765 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
  …sort to parol evidence. Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Where it appears that the parties are continuing to negotiate as to essential terms of an agreement, there can be no meeting of the minds. Drost v. Hill, 639 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). AFFIRMED. SAWAYA, J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., concurring and dissenting, with opinion.…

Authorities Cited

• Beauford White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1987)
• Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1990)