Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Pearson v. Pearson
  342 So. 2d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the property settlement agreement, as written, did not require the wife to quit claim her interest in jointly owned real estate to the husband.
• The Boeing Co. v. U.S.A.C. Transp., Inc.
  539 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the carrier's bill of lading, issued after shipment commenced but accepted by the shipper without objection and paid at the agreed rate, constituted the contract of carriage, limiting liability.
• Dynamic Homes, Inc. v. Rogers
  331 So. 2d 326· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-23 ·cited 10×
  In this promissory note suit, the court reversed the judgment against corporate defendants Dynamic Homes, Inc. and Talltree, Inc., holding that parol testimony failed to establish they were the parties represented when the Maas signed individually without mentioning the corporati
• Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  524 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court did not issue a holding as this is a concurring opinion.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers Lodge NO. 1194 v. Sargent Indus.
  522 F.2d 280· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pension plan's ambiguous funding language, when interpreted through parol evidence of negotiator assurances, required the company to contribute the maximum deductible amount. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees based on the "American Rul
• Maszewski v. Piskadlo
  318 So. 2d 226· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-07-25 ·cited 10×
  An 83-year-old woman sought to enforce a 1970 agreement granting her the right to reside in a house owned by a 79-year-old widower who held a life estate. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the agreement was unenforceable due to lack of mutuality
• WAX v. Honorable Constance Baker Motley
  510 F.2d 318· 2d Cir.· 1975-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was valid because the grand jury was intended and treated as a special grand jury under 18 U.S.C. § 3331, despite ambiguity in the original order.
• Hanson v. Hunt OIL Co.
  505 F.2d 1237· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff's current claims because they involved the same cause of action as a previously litigated matter, even if framed differently.
• Airlift Int'l, Inc. v. Willian R. Boyd & First Nat'l Bank of Bay Harbor Islands
  280 So. 2d 57· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-07-03 ·cited 10×
  A union's refusal to cooperate with an equal employment opportunity plan, even if not a signatory, can constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to Title VII rights, especially when combined with historical discriminatory practices.
• WM. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  467 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a written settlement agreement, which contained mutual releases and was intended to resolve all claims under the contracts, could not be modified by a contemporaneous oral agreement regarding a specific fire damage claim, absent fraud, accident, or mistake.
• Industrial v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  465 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the truck was covered by Aetna's policy as an 'owned automobile' because legal title remained with Hawaiian Dredging, and therefore Industrial, which provided excess coverage, was entitled to subrogation after paying the judgment.
• Koenig v. Watsco, Inc.
  261 So. 2d 851· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-29 ·cited 10×
  The Koenigs sold two corporations to Sun Engineering (a WATSCO subsidiary) in 1967 for a purchase price payable partly in cash, assumed debt, and 50% of future profits over five years. This appeal addresses disputes over the special master's accounting regarding depreciation calc
• In re William Rakestraw Co., Inc. v. Bankruptcy
  450 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the referee erred in denying Marin's claim based on the parol evidence rule, lack of prior payment, and undue delay, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Murphy OIL Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  431 F.2d 805· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the Commission may have authority to order refunds in certain circumstances, it cannot do so without providing an evidentiary hearing, especially when the contract is ambiguous and the parties' intent is unclear.
• Airborne Freight Corp. v. McPHERSON
  427 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the merger agreement was unambiguous and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to enforce its terms.
• Oswald v. Allen
  417 F.2d 43· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-14 ·cited 10×
• McCLUNG v. Thompson
  401 F.2d 253· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a rice allotment runs with the land and cannot be converted or transferred by private agreement, and that the escrow agreement regarding interest payment was ambiguous, requiring parol evidence.
• DeHART v. Richfield OIL Corp.
  395 F.2d 345· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-21 ·cited 10×
  A prior court-ordered settlement and general release, which determined the attorney's authority to settle all claims, bars a subsequent suit for breach of contract arising from the same dealings.
• Cap. Invs. Co. v. Devers
  387 F.2d 591· 4th Cir.· 1967-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Capital Investors' appeal was without merit and affirmed the district court's finding of interest, and affirmed the denial of Devers' motion for a new trial as untimely.
• Crompton-Richmond Co. v. Smith
  392 F.2d 577· 3d Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 10×
  Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict a written guaranty, even if supported by independent consideration.
• Nafco OIL & GAS, Inc. v. Appleman
  380 F.2d 323· 10th Cir.· 1967-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that if a contract provision is ambiguous, parol evidence creates a material issue of fact that cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
• Edward R. Kenneally in Bankr. of Gen. Magnetics, Inc. v. Standard Elecs. Corp. & First Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis
  364 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that chattel mortgage property descriptions were sufficient under Minnesota law, that attached property qualified as trade fixtures and remained personalty, and that a 'dragnet' clause secured future advances even without actual notice of a subsequent mortgage, pro
• Great W. Cas. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch.
  358 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to determine the intended coverage of the insurance policy, and that the policy did not cover the leased truck.
• Victory Motors OF Savannah, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
  357 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-15 ·cited 10×
  A manufacturer can terminate a dealer's franchise for prolonged failure to comply with a valid contract clause, and such termination is not a lack of good faith under the Automobile Dealers Franchise Act.
• Schekter v. Michael
  184 So. 2d 641· Fla.· 1966-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a promissory note with a blank due date automatically becomes a demand note under Florida Statute § 674.09(2), precluding parol evidence of an agreement to delay maturity. The court affirmed summary judgment for the note holder against the make
• Robert W. Matthews in Bankr. of Beard & Co., Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc.
  345 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that designations of lumber inventory made within four months prior to bankruptcy did not constitute voidable preferences because they related back to the date the factor's lien notice was filed, and that other challenged transactions were validly secured.
• Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  340 F.2d 398· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding Hellenic's letter and in applying the parol evidence rule and Statute of Frauds to bar evidence of the oral affreightment contract.
• S. Fireproofing Co. v. R. F. Ball Constr. Co., Inc.
  334 F.2d 122· 8th Cir.· 1964-07-07 ·cited 10×
  A general contractor is not liable to a subcontractor for delay damages caused by subsurface conditions or other factors, absent specific contractual provisions making the contractor responsible for such delays or guaranteeing specific completion dates.
• Stuco Corp. v. Gates
  145 So. 2d 527· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-09-19 ·cited 10×
  Stuco Corp. appeals a trial court's dismissal of its action seeking return of a $60,000 security deposit paid under a motel lease. The court held that the security deposit constituted liquidated damages under the lease terms, not an unenforceable penalty, and that the lessor's re
• Modern Farm Serv., Inc. v. BEN Pearson, Inc.
  308 F.2d 18· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was no breach of express or implied warranty because the written contract was governed by Arkansas law, which does not allow oral warranties to modify written contracts and excludes implied warranties for patented or trade-name goods.
• Royce Chem. Co. v. Sharples Corp.
  285 F.2d 183· 2d Cir.· 1960-12-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the seller breached an express warranty by stating its machine was suitable for the buyer's specific production process, and that the buyer's damages were properly calculated, but the award of interest needed modification.
• Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Bent Equip. Co.
  283 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1960-10-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking the fraud defense, as the allegations stated a prima facie case, but correctly struck the defense based on breach of warranty.
• Commercial Credit Corp. v. Sorgel
  274 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding fraud and the treatment of assigned accounts as payment were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that certain ledger entries must be given effect.
• Gulf Atl. Towing Corp. v. Dickerson, Inc.
  271 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1959-10-27 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's judgment should be affirmed because its findings of fact and conclusions of law were amply supported by the evidence.
• Burlesque Artists Ass'n v. I. Hirst Enters., Inc.
  267 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1959-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the plaintiff's capacity to sue and the validity of a subsequent oral agreement to the jury, nor in its method of calculating damages.
• Major Appliance Co., Inc. v. Hupp Corp.
  254 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the corporation assumed the liabilities of the proprietorship based on the bill of sale construed in light of surrounding circumstances and the parties' subsequent conduct.
• The Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Faye Wahl
  97 So. 2d 714· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-10-22 ·cited 10×
  A tenant sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement granting exclusive rights to sell food and delicacies at leased premises, which was not included in the written lease. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree that had enjoined the landlord from competing uses
• Raymond Pearson Motor Co. & Raymond Pearson, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  246 F.2d 509· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Commissioner's determination under Section 45 is subject to judicial review and can be set aside if clearly erroneous, even if approved by the Tax Court.
• Murray de Ronde v. Gaytime Shops, Inc.
  239 F.2d 735· 2d Cir.· 1956-12-07 ·cited 10×
• Johnson Farm Equip. Co. v. Cook
  230 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1956-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants, as attorneys for a client involved in litigation, were not third-party beneficiaries of an agreement between the plaintiff and an intervener, and thus could not claim its protections as a matter of law to avoid liability for conversion.
• Producers Livestock Loan Co. v. Idaho Livestock Auction, Inc.
  230 F.2d 892· 9th Cir.· 1956-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly admitted parol evidence to determine the parties' intent, as the written instrument was not intended to be the complete agreement.
• Worcester Felt PAD Corp. v. Tucson Airport Auth.
  233 F.2d 44· 9th Cir.· 1956-02-23 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority incorrectly interpreted Arizona law regarding foreign corporations doing business in the state.
• United States v. Johnson
  208 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1953-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the mortgage invalid for lack of consideration, as the witness testimony regarding simultaneous execution was unimpeached and the mortgage was valid as to the defendant.
• Bellows v. Porter
  201 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1953-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the alleged oral agreement modifying a written stock option was unenforceable as it materially altered the written contract and lacked certainty, and that the refinancing of the corporation was not fraudulent or a breach of trust.
• Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Strickland
  187 F.2d 67· 6th Cir.· 1951-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not allowing the equitable defense of reformation to be fully heard and decided by the court.
• Owen v. Schwartz
  177 F.2d 641· D.C. Cir.· 1949-09-26 ·cited 10×
  A contract provision stating that only written terms are binding does not preclude a defrauded purchaser from rescinding the contract based on an agent's fraudulent oral misrepresentations.
• Cafritz v. Koslow
  167 F.2d 749· D.C. Cir.· 1948-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding potentially relevant testimony and in failing to make explicit findings regarding a new oral contract, requiring reversal and remand.
• Vargas v. Esquire, Inc.
  166 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1948-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a fiduciary relationship and that the evidence did not support claims of fraud or deception in the procurement of the contract.
• Arrow Petroleum Co. v. Johnston
  162 F.2d 269· 7th Cir.· 1947-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the demurrage clause was an independent covenant, and Arrow's default in paying demurrage did not justify Johnston's cancellation of the contract.
• Refinery Equip., Inc. v. Wickett Ref. Co.
  158 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1947-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the written contract, incorporating catalogue descriptions, contained warranties that were breached, but the buyer's right to reject the tower under Texas law required it to be wholly unsuitable, not just of inferior quality.