Parol Evidence Rule

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

• United States v. Zipkin
  729 F.2d 384· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that admitting a bankruptcy judge's testimony on questions of law and interpretation of his own order constituted reversible error.
• Barclays Bank D. C. O. v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank
  481 F.2d 1224· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-03 ·cited 50×
  A bank can confirm a letter of credit issued by a non-bank under the Uniform Commercial Code, and Mercantile's letter constituted such a confirmation, making it directly liable.
• Bryant v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp. Niagara Chem. Div.
  130 So. 2d 132· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-15 ·cited 50×
  The court held that parol evidence is inadmissible to limit the terms of an unambiguous written guarantee, and a creditor has no duty to notify a guarantor of transactions unless specifically required by contract.
• Carson v. Council Bryan Palmer
  139 Fla. 570· Fla.· 1939-07-28 ·cited 50×
  In an ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court held that a deed containing two clearly intelligible but mutually inconsistent property descriptions is void for patent ambiguity and cannot be admitted in evidence, even though parol evidence might normally clarify latent ambigui
• Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co.
  36 Fla. 284· Fla.· 1895-06-01 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a replevin action brought by the Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Company (for the use of the First National Bank) against J. N. Roof to recover a flooring machine worth $850. The court held that conditional sales reserving title in the seller unti
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Sunrise Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. TWO Rivers Assocs., Inc.
  880 F.2d 1267· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine estops the defendant from asserting defenses based on an alleged oral agreement to fund the entire project, as this agreement was not reflected in the savings and loan's records and would mislead regulatory authorities.
• Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n
  805 F.2d 663· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-29 ·cited 49×
  Major league baseball clubs own the copyright in televised game telecasts as works made for hire, and this copyright preempts players' rights of publicity in their game-time performances.
• Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc.
  374 So. 2d 1057· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-08-14 ·cited 49×
  Socarras sought specific performance of an alleged real estate contract to purchase the Silver Sands Motel from Claughton Hotels. The court held that the documents presented—an unsigned RAMCO form and a handwritten note—did not satisfy Florida's statute of frauds because the hand
• McClure v. Century Ests., Inc.
  96 Fla. 568· Fla.· 1928-11-27 ·cited 49×
  This case concerns the priority of liens on mortgaged property when the mortgagee assigns a portion of the secured debt to third parties. The Florida Supreme Court held that when a mortgagee assigns part of a series of notes secured by a single mortgage and retains the remainder,
• Griffin v. Societe Anonyme la Floridienne
  53 Fla. 801· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 49×
  This case involves a dispute over whether certain words in a phosphate mining lease were inserted after execution and delivery without consideration. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of the complainants' request to reform the lease, finding that the
• Josiah T. Walls v. Endel
  20 Fla. 86· Fla.· 1883-06-01 ·cited 49×
  In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant may plead equitable defenses in ejectment proceedings, specifically that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage for security purposes. The court reversed the trial court's decision to strike
• Phillips OIL Co. v. OKC Corp.
  812 F.2d 265· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the contract was clear and unambiguous, and parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict its terms, especially given the parties' sophistication and review process.
• Dollar Rent A CAR OF Wash., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  774 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction and in holding Travelers in civil contempt because Dollar and Viking failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the contempt order was based on i
• Scno Barge Lines, Inc. v. Anderson Clayton & Co.
  745 F.2d 1188· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior contracts and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for breach of contract.
• Audit Servs., Inc. v. Marselius Rolfson
  641 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the collective bargaining agreements unambiguously required contributions for nonunion employees and that Rolfson Construction was liable as a successor employer, but reversed the personal liability of Marcus Rolfson due to insufficient evidence of fraud or in
• McGRATH v. Zenith Radio Corp.
  651 F.2d 458· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the majority erred in finding a breach of contract, securities fraud, and common law fraud, and that punitive damages were improper.
• Bosse v. Crowell Collier AND MacMillan
  565 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 48×
  The majority erred in reversing the dismissal of the seventh claim for relief, as allegations of an undisclosed purpose to gain control of a debtor's company through stock pledge do not state a claim under Rule 10b-5.
• Int'l Erectors, Inc. v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & Rental Serv.
  400 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-04 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the contract unambiguously showed Wilhoit had no duty to supply steel, and International was not a third-party beneficiary to Southern's contract. However, the condition for releasing retainage was remanded.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. W. L. Mead, Inc.
  230 F.2d 576· 1st Cir.· 1956-03-06 ·cited 48×
  Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 is constitutional, and a strike in violation of an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement constitutes a breach of contract, even without an express no-strike clause.
• Barthel v. Stamm
  145 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the amended petition related back to the original filing date, thus avoiding the statute of limitations, and that the defendant was incompetent to testify to an agreement contradicting the written loan documents.
• E. J. Sparks Enters., Inc. v. Christman
  95 Fla. 928· Fla.· 1928-05-15 ·cited 48×
  A Florida Supreme Court decision holding that a promissory note holder may discard mortgage security and sue at law on the note itself, and that parol agreements cannot contradict the unambiguous terms of a written promissory note. The court rejected the defendant's pleas that eq
• In re Beverly Hills Bancorp v. R.W. Hine
  752 F.2d 1334· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in reforming the settlement agreement in violation of the appellate mandate and in denying CPH standing to vote on reorganization plans. The court also held that CPH are entitled to post-petition interest.
• Harrell v. Durrance
  9 Fla. 490· Fla.· 1861-01-01 ·cited 47×
  In this 1861 case, Harrell appeals a judgment on a promissory note for $700, arguing the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. The Florida Supreme Court found the jury awarded $42.67 in excessive damages by failing to credit an endorsement on the note an
• Beans v. Chohonis
  740 So. 2d 65· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-07-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the phrase 'leave the employment... for any reason' in a stock transfer agreement unambiguously includes involuntary termination.
• The Carpenters Amended & Restated Health Benefit Fund v. Holleman Constr. Co., Inc.
  751 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the 1973 short-form agreement terminated when the corresponding master agreement terminated, as the short-form agreement was ambiguous and parasitic upon the existence of a master agreement.
• Jewel Cos., Inc. v. PAY Less Drug Stores Nw., Inc.
  741 F.2d 1555· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-05 ·cited 46×
  A corporate board of directors may lawfully bind itself in a merger agreement to forbear from negotiating or accepting competing offers until shareholders consider the initial proposal.
• Compania Espanola de Petroleos v. Nereus Shipping
  527 F.2d 966· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a guarantor who agrees to assume the rights and obligations of a charterer under a charter party is bound by the charter party's arbitration clause, and that consolidation of arbitrations is permissible under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Ennis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc.
  203 So. 2d 514· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-10-27 ·cited 46×
  An employee sought a declaratory decree and accounting to determine his entitlement to 25% of gross profits under an employment contract with a real estate development corporation. The trial court rendered a bare final decree dismissing all claims without addressing the merits, a
• Allen v. Werner
  190 F.2d 840· 5th Cir.· 1951-07-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to construe the patent agreement, as the agreement was ambiguous regarding the rights conveyed.
• McNair & Wade Land Co. v. Adams
  54 Fla. 550· Fla.· 1907-06-01 ·cited 46×
  McNair & Wade Land Company purchased timber rights from the Adams family under a deed executed in 1900 for $400, with rights to turpentine and mill the timber. When the company failed to remove the timber for six years, the Adams family sued to cancel the deed, claiming an implie
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Amkor Tech., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2007-11-14 ·cited 45×
  The Court held that the assignment from Citizen to Amkor was valid. The Court found that the terms 'license' and 'assignment' have distinct meanings in patent law and that the restrictions in Section 4.1 of the Patent License Agreement (PLA) regarding licensing did not apply to a
• Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. Am. Excess Corp.
  501 So. 2d 667· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-01-13 ·cited 45×
  Randy International, a freight forwarder, was held liable by a trial court for damages when goods shipped to Cairo arrived but could not be released due to unpaid freight charges, forcing American Excess to make a double payment. The appellate court reversed, finding no competent
• Fletcher v. Williams
  153 So. 2d 759· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-05-21 ·cited 45×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint seeking enforcement of an alleged parol agreement whereby the Fletchers promised to gift land to the Fletchers in exchange for care and services. The court held that the statute of frauds is an
• Markell v. Hilpert
  140 Fla. 842· Fla.· 1939-12-05 ·cited 45×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court finding that an absolute deed from the Hilperts to Frank E. Markell was intended as a mortgage to secure a $65,000 loan, even though the deed contained language of absolute conveyance and the parties simultaneously executed a repur
• Crown Mgmt. Corp. v. Goodman
  452 So. 2d 49· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-05-11 ·cited 44×
  Crown Management Corporation appealed a trial court decision interpreting a rent escalation clause in a 99-year commercial lease, arguing the court erred in refusing to consider parol evidence to resolve an ambiguity between two conflicting sentences in the lease provision. The a
• Charles A. Wright, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co.
  354 F.2d 710· 1st Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's general objections to jury instructions were insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, and that the exclusion of testimony regarding a prior oral conversation was proper under the parol evidence rule.
• Charles S. Adams de Bonis non cum Testamento Annexo of the Estate of John S. Adams v. Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Fund
  37 Fla. 266· Fla.· 1896-01-01 ·cited 44×
  This case concerns whether railroad interest coupons found among the effects of John S. Adams belonged to his estate or to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of Florida. The court upheld the lower court's dismissal, finding that Adams held the coupons in his o
• Spann v. Baltzell
  1 Fla. 301· Fla.· 1847-01-01 ·cited 44×
  In this bill of exchange dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against endorser Richard Spann, holding that an oral agreement to accept insolvent bank notes instead of money constituted valid substituted consideration, but that such tender required physical produ
• DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC
  112 So. 3d 85· Fla.· 2013-03-28 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel cannot be used as an exception to the Statute of Frauds, overturning a Fourth District decision that enforced an oral modification to a real estate purchase contract. The Court reaffirmed its long-standing precedent from Tan
• Mac-Gray Servs., Inc. v. Savannah Assocs. of Sarasota, LLC.
  915 So. 2d 657· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-10-12 ·cited 43×
  Mac-Gray Services appealed a summary judgment in favor of Savannah Associates interpreting a lease addendum. The court reversed, holding that the addendum contained a latent ambiguity regarding the lease extension period that precluded summary judgment and required consideration
• Bower v. The Bunker Hill Co.
  725 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that material issues of fact existed regarding the vesting of retirement medical insurance benefits, precluding summary judgment.
• Cathbake Inv. Co., Inc. v. Fisk Elec. Co., Inc.
  700 F.2d 654· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Article 9.4 unambiguous and in excluding extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent concerning inter-company accounts, particularly the 1978 tax loss.
• Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co.
  451 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that evidence of trade usage and course of dealing should have been admitted to explain or supplement the contract terms, entitling Columbia to a new trial on the contract claim, but affirmed the judgment on the antitrust issues.
• Valentine v. Hayes
  102 Fla. 157· Fla.· 1931-06-24 ·cited 43×
  This case addresses whether an indorser of a negotiable promissory note can defend against liability by proving the indorsement was made without consideration or as a gift. The Florida Supreme Court held that under the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, an indorser's statutory l
• Lizzie Andreu v. Watkins
  26 Fla. 390· Fla.· 1890-06-01 ·cited 43×
  This case involves competing claims to a strip of land in St. Augustine, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court held that a deed's description must be interpreted according to its plain language and reference to recorded surveys, and that parol evidence cannot be used to override an
• Taylor v. Taylor
  1 So. 3d 348· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-01-28 ·cited 42×
  In this Florida probate case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that a prenuptial agreement did not affect the surviving spouse's intestate and elective rights. The court held that the agreement's unambiguous language providing that each party's propert
• Centennial Mortg., Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd.
  772 So. 2d 564· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-10-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding parol evidence offered to resolve a latent ambiguity in the contract regarding cost overruns.
• Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  849 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the FTC's order, holding that Orkin's unilateral breach of over 200,000 customer contracts by increasing fixed annual renewal fees constituted an unfair act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
• Patton v. Mid-Continent Sys., Inc.
  841 F.2d 742· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule does not bar reformation of a contract for mutual mistake, and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive due to double counting and improper calculation, requiring a new trial on damages.
• TCP Indus., Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  661 F.2d 542· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding contract modification and the reasonableness of prices under the 1974 contract were supported by sufficient evidence, and that certain procedural errors did not warrant reversal.