Parol Evidence Rule

2,396 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Puff 'N Stuff OF Winter Park, Inc. v. Bell
  683 So. 2d 1176· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-12-20 ·cited 20×
  Puff 'N Stuff and the Dietels appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim and third-party actions against Federal Trust Bank for allegedly failing to honor oral promises to fund their construction project. The court affirmed, holding that Florida Statute § 687.0304(
• Hall v. Burger King Corp.
  912 F. Supp. 1509· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by general releases they had executed, as the releases were clear, unambiguous, and the plaintiffs were aware of their claims and represented by counsel when signing them.
• Mahendr Nauth Bajrangi v. Magnethel Enters., Inc.
  589 So. 2d 416· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-11-14 ·cited 20×
  Bajrangi purchased a food store business and leased the underlying real property with an option to buy it for $280,000, described as '1101-½ East Plant Street and the surrounding real estate.' When Bajrangi exercised the option, Magnethel refused to close, claiming the property d
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co.
  931 F.2d 744· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the settlement agreement mooted the controversy between the insurer and the insured group, and that the primary insurers were not obligated to indemnify the excess insurer because their policies did not cover discrimination claims.
• United States v. Stump Home Specialties Mfg.
  905 F.2d 1117· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 20×
  A waiver of notice for loan modifications in a guaranty agreement is valid, and the substitution of a variable interest rate for a fixed rate, or one variable rate for another, is supported by consideration and thus enforceable against the guarantors.
• Adeline M. Bruno v. W.B. Saunders Co. & CBS Educ. & Prof'l Publ'g
  882 F.2d 760· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of willful age discrimination and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Griffin v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  532 So. 2d 1358· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-11-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a latent ambiguity in a mortgage release agreement regarding the definition of 'option price' creates a material issue of fact, precluding summary judgment.
• Kamleshwar Upadhya v. Langenberg
  834 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 20×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding that the cited testimony did not alter the prior conclusion regarding the employment property interest.
• Amoco OIL Co. v. Glyndon R. Ashcraft and Carolyn S. Ashcraft
  791 F.2d 519· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the guaranty was unambiguous and enforceable, and that the Ashcrafts' claims of fraud, estoppel, and unconscionability failed under Indiana law.
• NRM Corp. v. Hercules Inc.
  758 F.2d 676· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the existence of genuine and material issues of fact regarding the parties' intent concerning delay and disruption costs makes summary disposition improper.
• Baum v. Great W. Cities, Inc.
  703 F.2d 1197· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the breach of contract claim, as the parol evidence rule barred oral representations that contradicted the integrated written agreement. The court also found that the jury's verdicts on fraud and
• Sawyer v. Arum
  690 F.2d 590· 6th Cir.· 1982-10-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding no contract existed between Sawyer and Arum, as the letter agreement was not shown to be contingent on other documents.
• S. Stone Co., Inc. v. Singer
  665 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury verdict should not be reversed due to a potentially erroneous admission of evidence, as any hearsay issue could have been resolved.
• Cappa v. Wiseman
  659 F.2d 957· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 20×
• Betz Labs., Inc. v. Hines
  647 F.2d 402· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-05 ·cited 20×
  Evidence of fraud in the inducement is admissible and outside the scope of the parol evidence rule, even with an integration clause.
• Audio Fid. Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
  624 F.2d 513· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 20×
  A retroactive amendment to a pension plan after its termination cannot alter the substantive rights of participants to recover excess funds, as such amendments are prohibited by ERISA and the plan's own terms.
• Swanson v. Baker Indus., Inc.
  615 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the contract's tax clause unambiguously required an annual deduction of $70,000 for taxes, not $35,000 per year, and affirmed the district court's exclusion of other disputed expenses.
• NEW England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. Univ. OF Colo.
  592 F.2d 1196· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enjoining state university agents from unlawful and tortious conduct in seeking to contract with a coach, and that the coach is not an indispensable party to the suit.
• Mott v. Odeco
  577 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the 'ruin' of the platform component as required by La. Civ. Code Art. 2322, and that the indemnity clause in the Master Service Agreement did not unambiguously cover claims arising from pre-existing defects not rela
• Pena v. Tampa Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  363 So. 2d 815· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-07-26 ·cited 20×
  Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize entry of a partial final summary judgment as a final judgment until the entire case is resolved, except in certain cases where parties are not jointly liable and the judgment fully disposes of claims against specific parties.
• Havatampa Corp. v. Walton Drug Co., Inc.
  354 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-02-01 ·cited 20×
  Havatampa Corporation sued Walton Drugs, Inc. and its president Robert Edrington on a promissory note. The trial court dismissed Edrington, finding the note unambiguously indicated only corporate liability. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the note's ambiguous s
• Baker & Co. v. Goding
  317 So. 2d 118· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-07-15 ·cited 20×
  Baker and Company appeals a damages award to its former agent Goding for compensation under an employment agreement providing for "10% of the net profits generated in the State of Florida." The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the compensation phrase was ambiguous and th
• Black v. Clifton
  284 So. 2d 465· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-11-02 ·cited 20×
  Purchasers of real property sued for specific performance when the sellers could not provide the promised public road access to the property. The court reversed the trial court's denial of specific performance, holding that buyers are entitled to specific performance with an abat
• United States v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  480 F.2d 1095· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 20×
  A sham settlement agreement intended to deceive a third party is unenforceable, and a surety cannot claim estoppel based on reliance on such a sham if it had sufficient notice of the underlying claim and failed to exercise due care.
• Leaseco, Inc. v. Bartlett
  257 So. 2d 629· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-12-16 ·cited 20×
  In a wrongful death action arising from a fatal automobile collision, the court upheld summary judgment determining that Leaseco, Inc. was the owner of the truck at the time of the accident based on an unambiguous lease agreement, rejected extrinsic evidence seeking to characteri
• Ortman v. Stanray Corp.
  437 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court clarified its prior opinion, stating that certain issues regarding jurisdiction and contract payments were not prejudged and remain open for determination on remand.
• Max Drill, Inc. v. The United States
  427 F.2d 1233· Ct. Cl.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government contract was ambiguous regarding the painting of wood sashes, and the contractor's reasonable interpretation, confirmed by the technical representative, should be upheld.
• H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Wire Rope Corp. OF Am., Inc.
  367 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1966-10-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the sale contract did not obligate the buyer to assume accrued but not yet due vacation pay, and that the annuity contract was an asset of the sold division passing to the buyer.
• Murray v. Lichtman
  339 F.2d 749· D.C. Cir.· 1964-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case based on the parol evidence rule, as a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the oral indemnity agreement and the written letter's validity.
• Atlas Sewing Ctr., Inc. v. Belk's Dep't Store OF W. Palm Beach
  162 So. 2d 274· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-03-27 ·cited 20×
  This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a series of agreements between a department store (Belk's) and a leased department operator (Atlas). The core issue is whether Atlas could use a reserve fund, established under the agreements, to cover losses from all its ti
• F & S Constr. Co. v. Emil Berube and Ellen Berube
  322 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1963-05-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an implied warranty of fitness can exist in Colorado for a house sale, even with an express warranty, if the defect is not covered by the express warranty and the contract is viewed as one for construction.
• Ark. Valley Feed Mills, Inc. v. FOX DE Luxe Foods, Inc.
  273 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1960-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the president and general manager had actual authority to execute a cancellation agreement for the corporation, binding the corporation to the agreement.
• Bruce v. Louis C. McCLURE in Bankr. of Bruce's Juices, Inc.
  220 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding that corporate payments on a personal mortgage were without consideration, and that the evidence did not support reviving the mortgage against Mrs. Bruce's interest.
• Landa v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  206 F.2d 431· D.C. Cir.· 1953-04-02 ·cited 20×
  The Tax Court erred in refusing to ascribe probative weight to oral testimony explaining or contradicting written agreements in a tax dispute.
• Geotechnical Corp. of Del. v. Pure Oil Co.
  196 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1952-04-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that filing a petition for limitation of liability does not abate a vessel owner's claim against a third party for loss of the vessel. It also held that Geotech was liable for the explosion due to its employee's negligence in preparing dynamite charges.
• Ford v. Luria Steel & Trading Corp.
  192 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1951-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the parol evidence rule, as the defendants' counterclaim presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding an alleged oral profit-sharing agreement that might be admissible under Nebraska law.
• Simpson Bros., Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia
  179 F.2d 430· D.C. Cir.· 1949-09-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the escalator clause was unambiguous and that the Price Decontrol Board and Department of Agriculture were not successors to the Office of Price Administration, thus price increases due to their actions were not covered by the clause.
• Gulf Theatres, Inc. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am.
  157 Fla. 428· Fla.· 1946-05-21 ·cited 20×
  Gulf Theatres sued Guardian Life Insurance Company to enforce an option to purchase leased theater property under Section 9 of their lease agreement. The court held that Section 9 gave the lessee an option to purchase only upon the lessor's notice of intent to cancel the lease fo
• Strickland v. Jewell
  80 Fla. 221· Fla.· 1920-07-10 ·cited 20×
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of a decree pro confesso against defendants who failed to sign their answer, holding that defendants did not demonstrate sufficient reasonable diligence to justify setting aside the defau
• Hazlett v. Willaume
  76 Fla. 514· Fla.· 1918-12-02 ·cited 20×
  This case concerns whether individuals who signed a promissory note with their titles (President and Treasurer) are personally liable or if the note was intended as a corporate obligation. The court held that extrinsic evidence should be admissible to determine the parties' inten
• May's Executors and Executrix v. Seymour
  17 Fla. 725· Fla.· 1880-06-01 ·cited 20×
  May's Executors sought to recover possession of five acres of land from Stephen Seymour under a written lease executed in 1877. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict invalidating the lease, holding that an illiterate defendant who did not know the contents of the
• Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley
  635 F.3d 1284· 11th Cir.· 2011-03-25 ·cited 19×
  Saregama India Ltd. sued Timbaland and other defendants for copyright infringement based on their digital sampling of the Indian song "Baghor Mein Bahar Hai" in the hip-hop track "Put You on the Game." The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding tha
• Jones v. Treasure
  984 So. 2d 634· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-06-18 ·cited 19×
  A former husband appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that awarded his ex-wife retirement benefits substantially exceeding what their marital settlement agreement provided. The court reversed, finding the agreement ambiguous regarding what happens when a pension pl
• The Doctors Co. v. State
  940 So. 2d 466· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-09-13 ·cited 19×
  The Doctors Company appealed a breach of contract judgment where a Florida court awarded the Department of Financial Services $17.9 million in damages on behalf of the receiver of Caduceus Self-Insurance Fund. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly ex
• Jeff D. v. Andrus
  899 F.2d 753· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding certain juveniles from the settlement agreement's benefits, interpreting the stipulation and settlement agreement broadly to include those diagnosed with mental illness regardless of their initial commitment reason or resi
• Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.
  885 F.2d 498· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII, Section 1981, CFEHA, breach of contract, and fraud claims, reversing the directed verdicts and remanding for a new trial, but affirmed the directed verdict on the tortious breach of implied covenant claim.
• Garza v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc.
  861 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the contract's 'red letter clauses' are ambiguous regarding the application of a sixty-day limitation period to personal injury claims, and therefore, extrinsic evidence should be considered.
• Woodling v. The Garrett Corp.
  813 F.2d 543· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding workers' compensation immunity and the validity of the release were supported by sufficient evidence, affirming liability for the defendants. However, the court found errors in the calculation of damages and prejudgment interest.
• Griesmann v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-29 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the 1977 agreement was an enforceable labor contract, not a collective bargaining agreement, and that the trial court erred in refusing to admit extrinsic evidence regarding its interpretation. The Joint Committee had jurisdiction over the dispute.
• Hinkle v. State
  355 So. 2d 465· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-02-21 ·cited 19×
  A co-owner of a joint bank account cannot be held guilty of larceny for withdrawing funds from the account, because a co-owner is in lawful possession of the joint property and lacks the essential larceny elements of taking property of another.