Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Mastry v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co.
  185 So. 2d 481· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-02-25
  The court held that the written agreement between the attorney and the defendants, which clearly stated the notes were for services rendered, estopped the defendants from claiming a contemporaneous oral agreement for conditional payment or failure of consideration.
• Roepke v. Kaenel
  182 So. 2d 651· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-12-21
  Victor Roepke endorsed a promissory note in blank, making himself an unqualified endorser liable to the holders, John and Louise Kaenel. The court affirmed summary judgment against Roepke, holding that parol evidence cannot alter the legal status of an endorser under Florida's ne
• Scocozzo v. Gen. Dev. Corp.
  25 Fla. Supp. 126· Indian River Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1965-06-15
  Homebuyers from New York purchased a waterfront lot and home in Sebastian Highlands Subdivision in Florida, allegedly based on representations that Collier Creek would be extended and made navigable to the Sebastian River. The trial court dismissed their complaint for rescission
• Albertha Rudy McKEE v. Hassebroek
  337 F.2d 310· 10th Cir.· 1964-10-21
  Title to jointly owned savings bonds passed to the surviving wife under the terms of the bonds and Treasury Regulations, not under the husband's will.
• Alstores Realty Corp. v. Twain
  167 So. 2d 601· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-08-12
  The appellate court held that the lease's language clearly limits additional rent calculation to gross receipts generated from the specific leased premises, not the entire department store operation on adjacent properties.
• Ayers v. Kidney
  333 F.2d 812· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-30
  An insurance policy's clear exclusionary endorsement cannot be overridden by an agent's oral statements or a certificate of insurance that omits limitations.
• Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc. v. Moore
  327 F.2d 592· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-21
  The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of an oral promise of permanent employment, and that a jury could find apparent authority for an agent to make such a promise.
• Electra Sales Inc. v. Barrett W. Chittenden and Alice G. Chittenden
  152 So. 2d 820· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-05-01
  Electra Sales appealed an interlocutory order striking one paragraph of defendants' counterclaim while allowing the remainder to proceed. The court affirmed, finding that while parol evidence issues may arise at trial, striking pleadings prematurely was improper and the trial jud
• In re Fitzgerald's Will
  20 Fla. Supp. 97· Sarasota Cty. J. Ct.· 1962-10-03
  The court construed Mary M. Fitzgerald's will to determine how her estate should be distributed after her named executor predeceased her. The court held that the $2,000 bequest to the executor lapsed and became part of the residue, the one-fourth of residue bequeathed to the exec
• Dancy v. William J. Howard, Inc.
  297 F.2d 686· 7th Cir.· 1961-12-28
  The court held that parol evidence was admissible to explain an ambiguous contract term, that the supplemental agreement was supported by valid consideration, and that the plaintiff's claim was not premature despite an unpaid bonus payment to the defendant.
• Williams v. Mercury Record Corp.
  295 F.2d 284· 7th Cir.· 1961-10-09
  The court held that the recording contract, when read in its entirety, did not prohibit the plaintiff from performing individually, as the contract's language and context indicated it applied only to the group's performances.
• Greer v. Cont'l Enters., Inc.
  17 Fla. Supp. 109· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1961-03-06
  A Florida circuit court dismissed a plaintiff's complaint for breach of an alleged lease agreement, holding that the defendant's letter offering to lease a storeroom could not satisfy the statute of frauds because it failed to disclose all material terms of the proposed contract.
• Pamela Amusement Co., Inc. v. Scott Jewelry Co.
  286 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1960-12-21
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in its conclusions regarding the lack of authority for the guarantee, the absence of personal liability on the lease, and the lack of reliance on misrepresentations.
• LA Fitte Co. v. United Fuel GAS Co.
  284 F.2d 845· 6th Cir.· 1960-12-14
  The court held that the lease was not ambiguous regarding market price and place, and the trial court correctly applied precedent to determine royalty payments based on the wellhead value.
• Pierce v. Anderson
  17 Fla. Supp. 1· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1960-10-11
  Pierce appealed a small claims court decision denying recovery of a $250 deposit for real property where the seller failed to provide marketable title due to undisclosed deed restrictions. The circuit court reversed, holding that deed restrictions constitute encumbrances that ren
• Karwisch v. Midland Distribs.
  118 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-02-19
  Property owners appealed a summary judgment holding them liable for the full difference between contract price and down payment to satisfy mechanic liens. The court reversed, holding that 'final payment' for mechanic lien purposes must be determined by what the parties actually s
• Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Levin
  115 So. 2d 423· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-11-02
  The court held that parol evidence was inadmissible to explain a written waiver of lien, and the refusal to transfer the case to the law side was proper because a complete defense to the lien was proven.
• Will M. Gillis v. Miners & Merchs. Bank OF Alaska
  271 F.2d 163· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-12
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the scope of the assignment or the bank's counterclaims, and the parol evidence rule barred evidence of a contrary oral agreement.
• Town OF Ninety SIX v. S. Ry. Co.
  267 F.2d 579· 4th Cir.· 1959-06-08
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the railroad had not entered into an agreement limiting its right-of-way, and that the trial court correctly excluded inadmissible hearsay evidence.
• Russell v. The Monongahela Ry. Co.
  262 F.2d 349· 3d Cir.· 1958-12-30
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict, the admission of testimony regarding employment policy, or improper closing arguments by plaintiff's counsel.
• Thorsness v. United States
  260 F.2d 341· 7th Cir.· 1958-10-16
  Payments made pursuant to a separation agreement are deductible as alimony only if they discharge a legal obligation arising from the marital relationship, not a debt for loans.
• Cobin v. Midland Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  260 F.2d 92· 9th Cir.· 1958-10-13
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that no insurance contract existed because the parties mutually treated the policy issuance as an offer requiring acceptance, which was never given.
• Roebuck v. Hendricks
  255 F.2d 211· 3d Cir.· 1958-05-15
  The court held that a contract for the sale of real estate must contain a sufficiently definite description of the land to satisfy the statute of frauds and be enforceable for specific performance.
• Pleatmaster, Inc. v. Consol. Trimming Corp.
  253 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-01
  The court held that the parties entered into a valid and binding patent license agreement, evidenced by the executed instrument and subsequent correspondence.
• Chappell v. Hasche
  98 So. 2d 808· Fla. 2d DCA· 1957-12-11
  Appellants sought to recover a $1,000 deposit given for a real estate transaction after alleging the written contract was subject to an oral condition precedent that would allow return of the deposit if they could not raise the required down payment within 30 days. The court held
• Braxton v. Sterling Holloway & Sun Valley Lodge, Inc.
  246 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1957-08-08
  The court held that the contract was for personal services, terminated upon the decedent's death, and that a subsequent release executed by the decedent's widow was valid and barred any claims.
• Fultz v. Anzac OIL Corp.
  240 F.2d 21· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09
  Treasury stock held by a corporation in liquidation does not pass as an "asset" under a contract for the sale of all corporate assets, especially when the sale occurs in the context of a liquidation plan.
• McJUNKIN Corp. v. City OF Orangeburg
  238 F.2d 528· 4th Cir.· 1956-11-13
  The court held that the contractor was obligated by the contract to include the South Carolina use tax in its bid price, as the original specifications requiring inclusion of all taxes were not superseded by the addendum.
• Doty v. Town of Palm Beach Shores
  10 Fla. Supp. 113· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1956-10-26
  Petitioners sought mandamus to compel issuance of a building permit for an apartment building on property designated as "Reserved" in the town's plat. The court held that neither the plat restrictions nor the zoning ordinance clearly prohibited construction on the disputed parcel
• Taran Distrib., Inc. v. AMI
  237 F.2d 488· 7th Cir.· 1956-10-15
  The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to support their claims of oral agreements overriding written contract cancellation clauses, thus a directed verdict for the defendant was proper.
• Air Conditioning Eng'rs, Inc. v. O'Neal Elec. Co.
  212 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-14
  The court held that a contract was formed upon defendant's verbal acceptance of plaintiff's bid, and the subsequent purchase order did not constitute a counteroffer that altered the original agreement.
• Sanger Bros., Inc. v. Smith
  211 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-26
  The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any sum from the defendant because his commission earnings did not exceed the guaranteed minimum earnings paid to him under the contract.
• Tamburello v. Hereford et ux.
  70 So. 2d 545· Fla.· 1954-02-26
  A lessee disputed a lessor's breach of lease claim, arguing the lessors failed to tender a furnished dwelling and garage space with two installed gas heaters. The trial court allowed the jury to interpret the ambiguous timing of the heater installation, resulting in a verdict for
• Harris v. Air Conditioning Corp.
  5 Fla. Supp. 199· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1954-01-26
  In this contract dispute, the court held that a written contract under seal cannot be modified by subsequent parol agreement unless the parties' actions are so inconsistent with the written terms that enforcing the writing would work a fraud. The court found the evidence here did
• Bommarito v. S. Canning Co.
  208 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1953-11-19
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that no contract existed because the parents' signatures were an essential condition precedent that was not fulfilled.
• Evangeline Percha and Byron Powell v. Erna A. Mahood
  63 So. 2d 186· Fla.· 1953-02-06
  The final written agreement controls the terms of the contract, merging all prior and contemporaneous negotiations. A condition not included in the final written instrument is not legally binding, even if it was part of an earlier document or endorsement.
• Commander Door, Inc. v. Dunsmuir Lumber Co.
  197 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1952-05-21
  The court held that the contract, as interpreted under California law, allowed the seller to cancel future deliveries, and the trial court properly rejected evidence offered to prove a contrary interpretation or modification.
• Rko Radio Pictures, Inc. v. Sheridan
  195 F.2d 167· 9th Cir.· 1952-03-05
  The court held that the phrase 'minimum compensation' in the contract was ambiguous and required admission of parol evidence to determine its meaning. It also held that RKO could not avoid paying compensation based on Sheridan not rendering services if she had not become obligate
• Boyer v. Anderson et ux.
  194 F.2d 305· 7th Cir.· 1952-01-30
  A wife's promise in a mortgage to pay the secured debt is enforceable, even if she did not sign the note, if there was consideration for her promise, such as the extension of credit to her husband.
• Narragansett Motors, Inc. v. Packard Motor Car Co.
  193 F.2d 545· 1st Cir.· 1951-12-31
  The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant did not breach its contract by failing to supply the plaintiff with more new automobiles than it received.
• Drummond v. Hales
  191 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1951-10-24
  Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the statutory liability of a drawer of a draft who has not expressly limited his liability within the instrument itself.
• McCAMY v. Gen. Elec. Supply Corp.
  185 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1950-12-19
  The court held that the written employment contract superseded any prior inconsistent oral agreement, and parol evidence of the oral agreement was inadmissible.
• Gen. Disc. Corp. v. Sadowski
  183 F.2d 542· 6th Cir.· 1950-06-02
  A prior judgment at law on a contract does not preclude a subsequent suit in equity for reformation of that contract if the mistake in drafting is shown.
• Scully v. Foster-Wheeler Corp.
  178 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-07
  The court held that the contract was not terminable at will and that the trial court did not err in its construction of the contract or its rulings on evidence and findings of fact.
• Werger v. Frederick Lee Co., Inc.
  175 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1949-07-14
  The court held that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the appellant because the evidence established she was a holder in due course, and the alleged parol agreement not to negotiate the instrument was inadmissible.
• Feuerstein v. Zukor
  174 F.2d 371· 2d Cir.· 1949-05-09
• Smith v. McLANE
  174 F.2d 819· 3d Cir.· 1949-04-13
  The court held that the trial court's finding of fact that no oral agreement was made was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the judgment.
• Shinn v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co.
  172 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1949-02-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's execution of a general release, in consideration for a new royalty agreement, effectively discharged all prior claims, including the one based on the Urschel agreement, as the release was unambiguous and supported by substantial evidence.
• McELROY v. Long
  170 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1948-11-06
  Under Mississippi law, there is no implied warranty of good condition for livestock sold at auction when the buyer has the opportunity to inspect the animals, absent fraud or the seller's knowledge of latent defects.
• Hotchner v. Neon Prods., Inc.
  163 F.2d 672· 6th Cir.· 1947-09-08
  The court held that the parties' oral agreement modified the written contract regarding the delivery of detailed sales statements, and that the trial court's interpretation of 'individually at retail' versus 'in quantity' sales was reasonable and supported by evidence.