Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Faulk v. Weller K-F Cars, Inc.
  70 So. 2d 578· Fla.· 1954-02-23 ·cited 14×
  A buyer of a used car sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging the seller misrepresented the vehicle's condition. The trial court directed a verdict against the buyer on the fraud claim, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the written warranty and explicit
• Richman v. Joray Corp.
  183 F.2d 667· 4th Cir.· 1950-08-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the settlement agreement did not waive the landlord's right to use the security deposit for future losses after the lease termination, as the lease terms and settlement explicitly preserved these rights.
• Alaska Pac. Salmon Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.
  163 F.2d 643· 2d Cir.· 1947-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, as the disclaimer clause effectively negated any implied warranty. The court also found no reversible error in the jury charge or the exclusion of documents.
• Porter v. Nowak
  157 F.2d 824· 1st Cir.· 1946-10-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the requirement for a written warranty under the Emergency Price Control Act Regulation was not a technical violation and could not be excused by the seller's oral warranty and subsequent performance.
• Wootton Hotel Corp. v. N. Assur. Co.
  155 F.2d 988· 3d Cir.· 1946-05-28 ·cited 14×
• Ross Eng'g Co. v. Pace
  153 F.2d 35· 4th Cir.· 1946-01-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting claims to the jury, as there was substantial evidence to support them, and that the specific contract provisions between subcontractors, rather than the contracting officer's decision, governed compensation for unfores
• Gatliff Coal Co. v. COX
  152 F.2d 52· 6th Cir.· 1945-11-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' wages were governed by the written collective bargaining agreements, not a prior oral agreement, and they were not estopped from claiming the balance due.
• Jurs v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  147 F.2d 805· 9th Cir.· 1945-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the wives' waivers of community interest in the partnership agreement were legally binding and not subject to alteration by subsequent parol evidence of intent, thus the full partnership income was taxable to the husbands.
• Cont'l Ill. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. Ehrhart
  127 F.2d 341· 6th Cir.· 1942-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the promissory note, when construed with collateral agreements and the parties' conduct, was not enforceable for the balance after the employee's discharge, as it was intended to be paid from future salary.
• Hwy. Const. Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Miami
  126 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1942-02-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the contractor was entitled to interest on the admitted amount due, but not on other disputed claims, and that the trial court's admission of parol evidence was error in favor of the contractor, who could not complain on appeal.
• Am. Crystal Sugar Co. v. Nicholas
  124 F.2d 477· 10th Cir.· 1941-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of an oral agreement to change stock from no par value to $1 par value before the written contract became effective, as the government was a stranger to the contract and the evidence explained performance.
• Coen v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  120 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1941-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant and that the case should have been submitted to the jury.
• Mrs. S. L. A. Clonts v. Spurway
  104 Fla. 340· Fla.· 1932-02-24 ·cited 14×
  This case concerns whether a judgment nil dicit (a default judgment for a portion of a claim) can be entered on the principal and interest of a promissory note when the defendant has only pleaded to the attorney's fees portion. The court held that such a judgment is permissible a
• Odlin v. Stuckey
  76 Fla. 42· Fla.· 1918-06-25 ·cited 14×
  Odlin gave a promissory note to the executors of Frank Simonton's estate in exchange for their promise to assume joint promissory notes on which Odlin was an accommodation maker and to release him from all liability. When the executors sued on the note without providing the promi
• Fee & Nesbitt v. Fla. Sugar Mfg. Co.
  36 Fla. 612· Fla.· 1895-06-01 ·cited 14×
  Fee & Nesbitt, contractors, sued Florida Sugar Manufacturing Company for payment for drilling an artesian well. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence after the jury found for the plaintiffs, and the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court impro
• Meinhardt Bros. & Co. v. Solomon Mode
  22 Fla. 279· Fla.· 1886-01-01 ·cited 14×
  Meinhardt Bros. & Co. sued Solomon Mode to recover money advanced to pay a judgment against third party Trespole Myers. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for Mode, holding that the court erroneously admitted Mode's testimony about his subjective intent regarding t
• Robinson v. Barnett
  18 Fla. 602· Fla.· 1882-01-01 ·cited 14×
  Robinson appeals a jury verdict against him on a promissory note endorsed by an unknown hand. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of the circumstances and conversation surrounding Robinson's writing of "protest waived" on the note should have been admitted t
• Quillen v. Quillen
  247 So. 3d 40· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-05-03 ·cited 13×
  A consent final judgment of dissolution of marriage that provides for offsetting child support and alimony obligations contains a latent ambiguity regarding the continuation of alimony after the child support obligation terminates, where the judgment fails to specify what happens
• Taylor v. Taylor
  183 So. 3d 1121· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-12-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a latent ambiguity existed in the marital settlement agreement regarding the payment of the wife's share of the husband's pension, requiring the consideration of parol evidence.
• H.A. Buie, Jr. v. Bluebird Landing Owner's Ass'n, Inc.
  172 So. 3d 519· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-08-07 ·cited 13×
  This case involves a dispute over the scope of an easement reserved by a developer in a riverfront common area. The trial court granted summary judgment against the developer, finding the easement did not include usage rights, but the appellate court reversed, holding the easemen
• Dirico v. Redland Ests., Inc.
  154 So. 3d 355· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-09-10 ·cited 13×
  In this real estate contract dispute, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against a property seller, holding that the contract language regarding deposit payments was unambiguous and that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to determine th
• Jaffe v. Bank of Am., N.A.
  667 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2009-08-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claims against the bank for negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel, as the evidence did not support his allegations of oral assurances contrary to the written letter of credit.
• Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Commercial Constr. Indus., Inc.
  978 So. 2d 873· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-04-16 ·cited 13×
  Emerald Pointe POA and Commercial Construction Industries (CCI) disputed whether a roof maintenance contract required CCI to repair hurricane damage without additional compensation. The Fourth DCA affirmed that the contract term "leak" was ambiguous and properly allowed parol evi
• F.W.F., Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
  494 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2007-06-25 ·cited 13×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding no material breach by either party.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1308· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Exxon breached its contractual obligation of good faith by allegedly double-charging dealers for credit card processing fees, thus denying Exxon's motion for summary judgment.
• Mariner CAY Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Topside Marina, Inc.
  714 So. 2d 1130· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-07-15 ·cited 13×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's decision that a settlement agreement was unambiguous. The court found the agreement was susceptible to different interpretations regarding the construction of a wall and a gate, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Care Travel Co., Ltd. v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  944 F.2d 983· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting parol evidence to interpret the ambiguous agency agreement and that the jury's finding of a breach of subsequent promises was supported by evidence of a bargained-for exchange.
• Stevens v. Allegro Leasing, Inc.
  562 So. 2d 380· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-05-23 ·cited 13×
  The appellate court held that the trial court's application of the wrong statute, leading to penalties against the mortgagee, constituted fundamental error that could be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Allan & Gloria Molasky v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  897 F.2d 334· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the tax court did not err in upholding the noncompetition provision's allocation and refusing income averaging, but erred in attributing the full amount to Allan Molasky.
• Real Est. Data, Inc. v. The Sidwell Co.
  809 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring express agreement or ratification for copyright ownership, and failed to adequately consider indirect evidence of intent from the parties' conduct. The court reversed and remanded for further
• In re PCH Assocs. v. PCH Assocs.
  804 F.2d 193· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a sale-leaseback arrangement structured for tax and investment advantages, where rent is based on investment return rather than property value and the lessee assumes ownership obligations, is not a 'true lease' under section 365(d)(3), (4) of the Bankruptcy Co
• Carefree Villages, Inc. v. Keating Props., Inc.
  489 So. 2d 99· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-05-07 ·cited 13×
  A real property seller sought specific performance or damages after the buyer of a mobile home park breached the purchase contract. The court reversed the trial court's judgment for the buyer, holding that the contract's inspection provision did not permit the buyer to rescind ba
• Flynn v. United States
  786 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to admit parol evidence regarding the taxpayer's waiver of notice of deficiency and that the taxpayer may be entitled to injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) if a waiver is not established and equitable grounds exist
• Coal Res., Inc. v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  756 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that an integration clause does not bar claims for fraudulent inducement or breach of implied covenants, and that the parol evidence rule does not apply to evidence of fraud in the inducement.
• Woods-Tucker Leasing Corp. OF Ga. v. Hutcheson-Ingram Dev. Co.
  642 F.2d 744· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 13×
  A party's contractual choice of law will be honored if the chosen jurisdiction bears a "reasonable relation" to the transaction, even if the intent is to avoid the usury laws of another jurisdiction with which the transaction also has contacts.
• Vanderbilt Towers v. Summit Props.
  379 So. 2d 384· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-12-28 ·cited 13×
• Murray v. Sullivan
  376 So. 2d 886· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-11-01 ·cited 13×
  The Murrays owned property as tenants by the entireties and entered into a written agreement with the Sullivans that a trial court interpreted as a contract for sale and purchase with specific performance ordered. The appellate court reversed, holding that while the instrument co
• Bd. OF Trade OF SAN Francisco v. Swiss Credit Bank
  597 F.2d 146· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the meaning of "full set clean on board bills of lading" in a letter of credit is a triable issue of fact, requiring consideration of trade custom and party intent, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.
• Barile Excavating & Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Vacuum Under-Drain, Inc.
  362 So. 2d 117· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-08-22 ·cited 13×
  Count one alleging implied warranty of fitness was properly dismissed because the written contract contained an express agreement to the contrary. Count two, though captioned as misrepresentation, adequately pleaded an oral modification to the written rental contract and was impr
• Lowell v. Twin Disc
  527 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether he failed to use his best efforts, as determined by the state court jury, which bars his claim for profits under the stock acquisition agreement.
• Vineberg v. Brunswick Corp.
  391 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the promissory notes were latently ambiguous and that parol evidence should have been admitted to determine whether the notes constituted a guaranty or a third-party beneficiary contract, thus precluding summary judgment.
• Ginsberg Mach. Co., Inc. v. J. & H. Label Processing Corp.
  341 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the alleged oral agreement and subsequent letter did not constitute an enforceable contract because they failed to meet the requirements of the New York Statute of Frauds and lacked essential terms.
• United States v. Croft-Mullins Elec. Co., Inc.
  333 F.2d 772· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the contract did not contain an express or implied promise by the Government to furnish needed materials at a specific time, and thus the contractor's losses were not compensable.
• Caserta v. Home Lines Agency, Inc.
  273 F.2d 943· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 13×
  An employer cannot use estoppel or the parol evidence rule to avoid liability for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act when the employee's duties fall within the Act's coverage. The employer bears the burden of proving good faith to avoid liquidated damages.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Lena H. Cooper
  233 F.2d 500· 4th Cir.· 1956-05-14 ·cited 13×
  A state motor vehicle financial responsibility act does not apply to voluntary insurance policies issued before an accident, and therefore does not override policy exclusions for family members.
• Burke v. Thos. D. Beasley
  75 So. 2d 7· Fla.· 1954-10-15 ·cited 13×
  M. C. Burke appealed a trial court decision dismissing his challenge to election returns in a 1954 Democratic Primary election for Florida legislature from Walton County. Burke claimed he was deprived of 20 votes due to an error by election managers, but the trial court found the
• Willits v. Yellow Cab Co.
  214 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1954-07-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendant waived its defense of release by failing to raise it properly and timely, and that other alleged errors were not grounds for reversal.
• Long v. Morris
  128 F.2d 653· 3d Cir.· 1942-05-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court properly entered judgment on the jury's verdict because the parol evidence rule, applied consistently across relevant jurisdictions, did not preclude the jury from resolving factual issues regarding the contract's existence and terms.
• Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr. v. Scialabba
  238 So. 3d 317· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-03-07 ·cited 12×
  Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust appealed the grant of an involuntary dismissal in a foreclosure action where the trial court found the bank failed to provide proper notice as a condition precedent to foreclosure. The appellate court reversed, finding the bank presented prima facie
• Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Robinson
  135 So. 3d 331· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-10-04 ·cited 12×
  Fi-Evergreen Woods, Themis Health Management, and Airamid Health Services appealed the denial of their motions to compel arbitration in a nursing home negligence case. The court reversed and remanded, finding that a substantial issue existed regarding whether the resident assente