Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Drake & Beemont Mut. AID Soc'y Against Fire & Lightning v. United States
  330 F.2d 548· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the mortgaging of corn to the Commodity Credit Corporation did not void the insurance coverage, and the endorsement of a check for other property did not constitute a release of the claim for the mortgaged corn.
• Fisher v. Maas Bros., Inc.
  149 So. 2d 910· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-02-20 ·cited 2×
  George Fisher appealed from a directed verdict in his malicious prosecution suit against Maas Brothers, Inc., challenging whether an initial guilty verdict in municipal court that was dismissed shortly thereafter precluded his action. The appellate court affirmed, holding that th
• Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Shaffer
  310 F.2d 668· 10th Cir.· 1962-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the alleged oral agreement for a stock option was invalid and unenforceable under the Oklahoma Statute of Frauds because the writings relied upon were insufficient to establish a binding contract and there was no part performance.
• Paramount Pest Control Serv. v. United States
  304 F.2d 115· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding taxpayer's affidavits based on the parol evidence rule, as extrinsic evidence was necessary to determine the parties' intent due to the hybrid nature of the agreements and conflicting stipulations.
• Farmers Mut. Hail Ins. Co. of Iowa v. FOX Turkey Farms, Inc.
  301 F.2d 697· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that antecedent oral negotiations were merged into the written insurance policies and could not be used to establish an oral contract for extended coverage beyond the written expiration date.
• Rudick v. Pioneer Mem'l Hosp.
  296 F.2d 316· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the release document's language was not so clear as to render the plaintiff's testimony of intent incredible, and thus a remand was appropriate.
• In re Est. of Orford Winans v. Winans
  133 So. 2d 473· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-10-06 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's construction of a will clause that devised all real property to two nephews (Richard and Max Winans) rather than limiting the devise to property in Port Clinton, Ohio. The court rejected the residuary legatee's arg
• Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  292 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties' intent, as evidenced by a central thread in their contracts, required T&NO to continue Bridge Rentals until Track Rentals received by the Trustee were refunded to Belt, even after the Indenture's fall. Section 7(a) also survives the Indenture's fa
• Miami Station, Inc. v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc.
  128 So. 2d 170· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-03-23 ·cited 2×
  An instrument conveying property to secure a debt, even if absolute on its face, is deemed a mortgage under Florida law and subject to mortgage regulations.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l HOD Carriers', Bldg. & Common Laborers' Union OF Am., Local 300, AFL-CIO
  287 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Martin Bros. was bound by the 1946 hiring hall agreement, and therefore the Union did not unlawfully cause the discharge of employees for failing to use the hiring hall.
• Colo. Nat'l Bank OF Denver v. Bohm
  286 F.2d 494· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that parol evidence is admissible to show lack of consideration for a promissory note between the original parties, even if it appears there was some benefit or detriment.
• Maritz, Inc. v. Acf-Wrigley Stores, Inc.
  283 F.2d 75· 8th Cir.· 1960-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract's language, when considered with extrinsic evidence, indicated the parties did not intend for the plaintiff to have the right to redeem Gold Premium stamps after the contract's termination.
• LUE v. United States
  280 F.2d 849· Ct. Cl.· 1960-07-15 ·cited 2×
• Graves v. Garvin
  272 F.2d 924· 4th Cir.· 1959-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the day books were admissible as books of original entry and that the inventory receipts did not qualify as warehouse receipts under Georgia law, thus allowing parol evidence to challenge their accuracy.
• Hicks v. Simmons
  271 F.2d 875· 10th Cir.· 1959-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the oral contract to leave property to the adopted sons was enforceable, despite the formal adoption order, because the order did not fully embody the inheritance agreement and the contract was sufficiently performed.
• Freedman v. United States
  266 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1959-04-21 ·cited 2×
  Advances made by a parent corporation to its subsidiaries for business expansion constitute a capital investment, not deductible losses, and therefore do not reduce the parent's earnings and profits for dividend tax purposes.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Fort Smith v. H. A. Phillips in Bankr. for Nico Wire Cloth Corp.
  261 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1958-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the "rental-purchase" agreement was a conditional sale, not a bona fide lease, because the total payments equaled the purchase price and a bill of sale was to be issued upon completion of payments.
• E. Freight Ways, Inc. v. United States
  257 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the carrier failed to prove its claims for overcharges, affirming the district court's judgment for the United States.
• Eggleston v. Dudley
  257 F.2d 398· 3d Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contradictory provisions in the insurance policies, when considered with the parties' intent and Pennsylvania law, created a vested interest for the widow, entitling the estate to the marital deduction.
• Kelley v. Otto Hansen
  254 F.2d 99· 1st Cir.· 1958-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's award of $81,000 for a share of profits was reversible error due to the vagueness of the oral contract term regarding profit sharing and the lack of evidence to support a quantum meruit claim.
• Grace & Co. (Pacific Coast) v. Pittsburgh Testing Lab.
  249 F.2d 165· 9th Cir.· 1957-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in limiting damages to the inspection fee paid, as actual damages flowing from the breach were foreseeable and recoverable.
• Widett v. Clement D'Andria
  241 F.2d 680· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Massachusetts recording statute does not preclude the use of parol evidence to establish the actual execution date of a mortgage when the instrument itself provides only the month and year.
• Hyman Rosen and Harry Grossman v. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co.
  240 F.2d 488· 8th Cir.· 1957-01-24 ·cited 2×
  Parol evidence is admissible to reform a written instrument based on mutual mistake, even if the instrument appears unambiguous on its face.
• United Mercury Mines Co. v. Bradley Mining Co.
  233 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the "net revenue" clause could control royalty computations and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence remained an issue.
• Cimarron Ins. Co., Inc. v. Pomeroy
  234 F.2d 262· 10th Cir.· 1956-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a condition precedent to the insurance policy's effectiveness, and thus the policy was in force at the time of the loss.
• Parker v. Bryce
  84 So. 2d 323· Fla.· 1955-12-20 ·cited 2×
  Parker sued Bryce to recover principal and interest on $37,500 in promissory notes. The trial court granted Bryce summary judgment, finding the loans violated Florida's usury law by charging 30% annual interest disguised as monthly charges. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, hol
• Universal Major Elec. Appliances, Inc. v. Glenwood Range Co.
  223 F.2d 76· 4th Cir.· 1955-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the buyer's acceptance of some defective goods did not preclude rejection of future shipments or recovery of advance payments, especially when a collateral agreement for cancellation existed.
• Guar. Tr. Co. OF NEW York v. Williamsport Wire Rope Co.
  222 F.2d 416· 3d Cir.· 1955-05-16 ·cited 2×
• Noble v. Farris
  221 F.2d 950· 1st Cir.· 1955-05-06 ·cited 2×
  A unilateral mistake by the plaintiff regarding the scope of claims released does not invalidate a general release, absent fraud or mutual mistake.
• Richards v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  215 F.2d 114· 8th Cir.· 1954-08-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the parol evidence rule, as Missouri law permits parol evidence to prove fraud in the inducement of a contract.
• Belvidere Distilling Co. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  211 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1954-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a written contract, which explicitly included a termination clause, could not be reformed to exclude that clause based on an alleged prior oral agreement, due to the parol evidence rule and lack of mutual mistake.
• Brown v. Farmer & Ochs Co.
  209 F.2d 703· 6th Cir.· 1954-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, as several fact issues, including whether the plaintiff was 'doing business' in Michigan and whether it was a holder in due course, should have been submitted to the jury.
• Tinkoff v. Jarecki
  208 F.2d 861· 7th Cir.· 1953-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for want of prosecution and in denying the petition to vacate that dismissal.
• Klefstad v. Am. Cent. INS. Co.
  207 F.2d 288· 7th Cir.· 1953-10-01 ·cited 2×
  A third party cannot sue on an insurance contract unless the contract expressly shows it was made for their benefit.
• Carter v. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp.
  200 F.2d 754· 8th Cir.· 1953-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lease did not require the lessee to extract 60% of the plant's gypsum requirements each month, but rather over the entire term of the lease, and thus no breach occurred.
• Sherwood Distilling Co. v. Peoples First Nat. Bank & Tr. Co.
  193 F.2d 649· 4th Cir.· 1952-01-03 ·cited 2×
  A holder in due course of a negotiable instrument, taken in good faith and for value without notice of any infirmity, is protected even if the instrument was initially signed in blank and later filled fraudulently.
• Porto RICO GAS & Coke Co. v. Frank Rullan & Assocs., Inc.
  189 F.2d 397· 1st Cir.· 1951-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act applies even when a contractual relationship exists, and that the Puerto Rican Civil Code provisions regarding employer liability and the defense of due diligence are substantive law. The court also affirmed that acceptance of work
• West v. Conrad
  177 F.2d 252· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of mutual intent for business use was insufficient to determine if the property was a 'housing accommodation' under the Act, and that the actual use must be determined.
• Anderson v. ST. Louis Terminal Warehouse Co.
  173 F.2d 436· 6th Cir.· 1949-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the written agreement was not a complete integration of the parties' bargain, allowing admission of parol evidence regarding the oral employment contract with the Machine Company.
• Am. Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Willis
  170 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1948-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract was unambiguous and that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to contradict its terms.
• Essington v. Parish
  164 F.2d 725· 7th Cir.· 1947-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove accord and satisfaction or that the instruments executed with Mayo and Crandall constituted a release of claims against them, and that the prior New York suit did not bar the current action due to lack of inconsistency.
• Commodity Credit Corp. v. Stanley W. Ferguson, Inc.
  161 F.2d 540· 1st Cir.· 1947-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for war risk insurance premiums paid, as the insurance was procured before the defendant directed otherwise and effective cancellation was impracticable.
• Hebbard v. Am. Zinc
  161 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1947-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employee who invents improvements within the scope of his employment, even if not explicitly contracted for, is generally considered to have assigned ownership rights to the employer in equity, absent a contract to the contrary.
• Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc.
  160 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1947-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract was not automatically extended by inaction and that the seller was not obligated to sell after the deadline passed without proper extension notice.
• Maljamar OIL & GAS Corp. v. Malco Refineries, Inc.
  155 F.2d 673· 10th Cir.· 1946-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the writings constituted a valid and enforceable contract obligating the buyer to pay a fixed price for oil, and that this contract was not barred by the statute of frauds under either New York or New Mexico law.
• Union Paving Co. v. United States
  150 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1945-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the subcontract was ambiguous regarding the responsibility for falsework, and extrinsic evidence showed the parties intended the contractor to bear the cost.
• Hamilton v. Morrison
  146 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1945-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the signed receipts did not constitute a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds for the sale of a royalty interest.
• Black v. Richfield Oil Corp.
  146 F.2d 801· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-12 ·cited 2×
• Lichter v. Westinghouse Elec. MFG. Co.
  140 F.2d 597· 6th Cir.· 1944-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that where a written contract is incomplete and refers to extrinsic matters, parol evidence is admissible to prove the unexpressed parts of the agreement.
• Howenstein Realty Corp. v. Richardson
  135 F.2d 803· D.C. Cir.· 1943-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that oral evidence was improperly admitted to vary the terms of the written contract because the contract incorporated official records that rendered the description certain.