Parol Evidence Rule

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

• DOW v. Wyman
  492 F.2d 950· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-21
  The dissenting judge would hold that the contract language was ambiguous, permitting parol evidence and requiring a trial.
• McCABE v. Ball Builders, Inc.
  39 Fla. Supp. 170· Flagler Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1973-08-02
  The court held that the insurance policy's language was not ambiguous and covered the booster dredge, making the insurer's refusal to defend unjustified.
• Biele v. Siegel
  280 So. 2d 704· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-07-31
• Strawn v. Theodore Strawn, Inc.
  39 Fla. Supp. 11· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1973-06-28
  This case involves a dispute over mineral rights to the Theresa Rodriquez Grant in Lake County, Florida, arising from a 1967 family business reorganization. The court found that defendants improperly retained surface and subsurface mineral rights that should have been conveyed to
• Wilder v. Stan Mintz
  276 So. 2d 205· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-04-10
  A real estate broker appeals a judgment for conversion of a $6,500 deposit check. The court reversed, holding that the sellers could not estop the broker from denying receipt when the check was never endorsed, deposited, or received by the broker, and that parol evidence is admis
• Marcel Dekker, Inc. v. Jean-Pierre Anselme
  468 F.2d 607· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-12
  The court held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment, even if it resolves some issues on the merits, is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if genuine issues of material fact remain on other claims.
• William E. Goetz & Sons v. Bd. OF Regents
  465 F.2d 432· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-10
  The federal district court correctly held that the prior Texas state court judgment was res judicata, barring the current action.
• Ellis v. Am. Biomedical Corp.
  464 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-21
  The court held that the employment contract was clear and unambiguous, and parol evidence was inadmissible to alter its terms.
• United States f/u/o Premier Elec. Int'l Corp. v. Arden Eng'g Atl. Contractors, Inc.
  462 F.2d 1039· 1st Cir.· 1972-07-07
  The court held that the district court did not err in considering parol evidence to interpret the subcontract's ambiguous exclusion of 'concrete work'.
• United States v. Hastings Motor Truck Co.
  460 F.2d 1159· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-01
  The court held that the trial court's findings of novation were supported by substantial evidence and not based on an erroneous view of the law, thus affirming the dismissal of the deficiency judgment claim against the original obligors.
• Jay-El Beverages, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.
  461 F.2d 658· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-31
  The court held that the unambiguous language of the distributorship agreement allowed either party to terminate the relationship at will without incurring liability.
• The Telex Corp. v. AiRESEARCH Aviation Co.
  460 F.2d 215· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-09
  The court held that the buyer's exercise of its rescission option under the supplemental agreement was valid, precluding the seller's claim for breach of contract.
• Louis M. McMASTER, Inc. v. Pennsbury Vill. Co. & Klingbeil Co.
  460 F.2d 520· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-05
  The court held that the plaintiff, as an independent contractor, was responsible for the excavation work and the resulting damages because the contract and the parties' conduct indicated the plaintiff retained supervisory control over the method of excavation.
• Schaufelberger v. Mister Softee, Inc.
  259 So. 2d 175· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-03-09
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking the guarantor's affirmative defenses of failure of consideration and signing in a representative capacity.
• Baker v. Rapport
  453 F.2d 1141· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-17
  The court held that parol evidence was admissible to show that assignments, absolute on their face, were intended as security transactions, not sales that extinguished the debt.
• William H. Davis, Inc. v. Burch
  257 So. 2d 582· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-12-16
• Boaters Paradise, Inc. v. Freburn Corp.
  256 So. 2d 68· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-12-07
  Boaters Paradise, Inc., a commercial tenant and assignee, challenged a summary judgment requiring it to pay increased ad valorem taxes under a lease clause with Freburn Corporation, the landlord. The Florida appellate court reversed because genuine issues of material fact regardi
• Melburn E. Broxson v. Chicago
  446 F.2d 628· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13
  The court held that a landlord's oral promise to repair a specific elevator defect, upon which the tenant reasonably relied by forbearing to make repairs itself, could be enforced under promissory estoppel, and that the landlord's indemnification claim against the tenant was not
• Rajay Corp. v. The Texstar Corp.
  439 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-31
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings and instructions, and the verdict was just.
• TED Spangenberg Co., Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas
  439 F.2d 1260· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-23
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear and unconditional promise from the defendant to pay for installation costs, thus affirming the trial court's denial of recovery.
• Moore v. Overstreet
  435 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-25
  The court held that the trial court properly entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence was insufficient to show the parties intended the term 'mineral rights' to encompass the broad surface rights reserved by Tufts College.
• Poorman v. Poorman
  240 So. 2d 510· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-10-27
• NEW York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Constr. Co.
  432 F.2d 182· 10th Cir.· 1970-10-06
  The court held that the insurer was bound by its agent's knowledge and intent regarding the description of the named insured in the policy, and thus had a duty to defend.
• Ferdinand E. Scharff and Isalbel Q. Scharff v. Bank OF Haw.
  432 F.2d 160· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-03
  The court did not explicitly state a holding as this is a dissenting opinion. The dissent argues for a new trial.
• Green Cove Title & Mortg. Co. v. Interstate Contracting Co.
  238 So. 2d 133· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-07-30
  Green Cove Title appealed a foreclosure judgment on a third mortgage securing a note for property acquired through a package deal involving two separate parcels. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's admission of parol evidence to establish consideration and rejected the
• Lewis v. Kellner
  428 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-02
  The court held that genuine issues of fact exist, precluding summary judgment, and the case should proceed to trial.
• Gulf-Atlantic Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Rigdon
  34 Fla. Supp. 166· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-05-05
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the court granted the defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's affirmative defenses, holding that the statute of frauds and parol evidence rule do not bar the defendant's counterclaim for breach of oral agreements regarding financing of grove dev
• KAY v. Yancey
  34 Fla. Supp. 148· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-04-08
  The court held that a contract for the sale of land signed by some owners, but expressly conditioned on all owners signing, is not binding on any owner until all have signed, especially when the buyer had notice of this condition.
• Booth v. N. Am. Aluminum Corp.
  423 F.2d 545· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-24
  The court held that the agent was not entitled to a split commission because the conditions for split commissions under the contract were not met, and the commission, if any, should only be based on the product cost, not installation.
• Cipolato v. Cooper
  230 So. 2d 687· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-01-27
  Cipolato appeals a judgment for breach of contract where Cooper sought payment for an irrigation system installation. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting Cipolato's argument that parol evidence should have been admitted to show the irrigation system was intended to provide
• Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. v. Murphy
  420 F.2d 1169· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-07
  A loan broker earns its commission when a binding loan commitment is delivered to the borrower, even if the loan ultimately fails to disburse due to subsequent issues.
• McNAMARA v. Jones & Guerrero Co., Inc.
  417 F.2d 1188· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-28
  The court held that summary judgment was correctly granted because the appellants' claims were barred by the written employment contract and Guam's parol evidence rule.
• Mullan v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1305· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16
  The court held that the phrase 'coincident with the cancellation' in the lease termination provision created an ambiguity, allowing for parol evidence to determine the parties' intent, and that the cancellation right was exercisable only at the time the new building was ready for
• Bowen v. Cullman Bros., Inc.
  414 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-17
  The court held that the phrase 'use of Cullman Bros. personnel' in the contract was unambiguous and excluded all personnel costs from packing and warehousing expenses, reversing the trial court's contrary interpretation.
• Hester v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co.
  412 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1969-06-13
  The court held that the defendants committed fraud by misrepresenting bond premium payments and failing to disclose a material indemnity agreement, affirming liability but remanding for recalculation of damages.
• Oglesby v. Allen
  408 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-17
  The court held that the contract was not ambiguous and parol evidence contradicting its terms was inadmissible. It also held that the appellant's damages claim for late delivery should be considered, but not based on open market value.
• Am. Cas. Co. v. M. S. L. Indus., Inc.
  406 F.2d 1219· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-07
  The court held that an oral agreement to designate a beneficiary for an insurance policy, supported by valuable consideration, can create equitable rights to the proceeds superior to those of the named beneficiary or the estate, even if the policy requires written designation.
• Consol. Util. Servs., Inc. v. Indian Lake Props., Inc.
  217 So. 2d 137· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-12-20
  Consolidated Utility Services appealed a summary judgment declaring that appellee Indian Lake Properties held fee simple title to land in Indian Lake Subdivision and that appellant held no rights therein. The court reversed, finding that appellant was not an unknown claimant in t
• Pace v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Osawatomie
  404 F.2d 52· 10th Cir.· 1968-11-27
  The court held that the decedent's intent to create a joint tenancy was not sufficiently clear under Kansas law, and thus the plaintiff did not acquire survivorship rights.
• McINTOSH v. Noonan
  402 F.2d 431· 1st Cir.· 1968-11-01
  The court held that the written agreement formalized the prior oral agreement, and advances made under both agreements could be offset against earned commissions.
• POE v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  213 So. 2d 723· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-09-09
  The court held that the beneficiary designation 'Harvey C. Poe, Trustee for the Estate of George C. Hancock' intended the estate, not Poe individually, to receive the policy proceeds.
• Sanders v. United States
  396 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-11
  The court held that oral testimony supplementing written Miranda warnings is admissible and does not violate the parol evidence rule.
• Coll. of the Virgin Islands v. Vitex Mfg. Co., Ltd.
  393 F.2d 481· 3d Cir.· 1968-03-14
  The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding no error in the interpretation of the agreement and the exclusion of parol evidence.
• Browning v. Swift & Co.
  388 F.2d 78· 7th Cir.· 1967-11-29
  The court held that the defendant was not a volunteer in paying the bank and could properly set off the amount paid to satisfy the plaintiff's mortgage obligation against the purchase price of the turkeys.
• Billingsley v. MacKay
  382 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-05
  The court held that the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and thus the defense of failure of consideration was invalid against him.
• In re Est. of Samuel Cohen v. Raschkind
  196 So. 2d 447· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-03-14
  The widow of Samuel Cohen appealed a probate court's construction of her deceased husband's will regarding how a marital deduction trust should be funded. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no reversible error in the judge's application of testamenta
• Merritt B. Hyatt v. Jurczyk
  368 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1966-11-16
  The court held that parol evidence is inadmissible to reform a will by substituting a completely different provision for one that appears to be a mistake.
• Samuel ST. Clair et ux. v. Eunice C. Cole et vir
  191 So. 2d 290· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-10-19
  The court held that the trial court's factual findings regarding the defendants' knowledge of an easement were supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed on appeal.
• Merrill v. United States
  365 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-29
  The court held that the conviction should be affirmed despite a potential issue with secondary evidence, as the defendant's own confession provided sufficient proof.
• Bafico v. S. Pac. Co.
  364 F.2d 36· 9th Cir.· 1966-07-26
  A release signed by a plaintiff, represented by counsel, to one tortfeasor is binding and bars claims against another tortfeasor if its language is clear and unambiguous, even if the plaintiff had uncommunicated reservations.