ALIZA BARZILAY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CARLTON PALMS EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint under the parol evidence rule, holding that oral representations cannot contradict an unambiguous written contract between the parties.
A written contract intended as the final embodiment of the parties' agreement cannot be contradicted, modified, or varied by parol evidence, and no exception to this rule applied.
[1] The parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of law preventing a written document intended by the parties as the final embodiment of their agreement from being contradic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants entered into a contract with Carlton Palms Educational Center and later alleged oral representations at variance with the written contract.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The second amended complaint of the appellants was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court because of an application of the parol evidence rule to the contract between the parties. Despite its name, the parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of law essentially to the effect that a written document intended by the parties to be the final embodiment of their agreement may not be contradicted, modified, or varied by parol evidence. See King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We find no error in the application of this concept by the trial court in the present case to the alleged oral representations at variance with the unambiguous contract before the trial court in the present case. Moreover, no exception to the parol evidence rule appears to be applicable.
Finally, the appellants argue that some parts of the trial judge’s final order in this matter were never argued to him below. We have not been provided with either a transcript of the hearing associated with the final order, or a stipulation pursuant to Rule 9.200(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, we are unable to address this matter. Cf., Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, MONACO, and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)