Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Masvidal v. Ochoa
  505 So. 2d 555· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-04-07 ·cited 36×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict against defendant Masvidal in a breach of contract, conversion, and civil theft action. The court rejected the defendant's three appellate arguments and upheld the trial court's rulings on directed verdict motions, a co
• Int'l Administrators, Inc. v. Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  753 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Illinois Insurance Code § 143.18 and the doctrine of conditional privilege insulate LINA from liability for its communications regarding IAI's late premium payments, and that a subsequent integrated agreement barred IAI's breach of contract claim based on an e
• Richland Plantation Co. v. Justiss-Mears OIL Co., Inc.
  671 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the additional royalty agreement was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence was admissible to determine the parties' intent, which was that the additional royalty was not subject to the lease's proportionate reduction clause.
• VON Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp.
  536 F.2d 838· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 36×
  A proprietary interest in a patent is necessary for claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective business advantage, but not for malicious prosecution. Evidence excluded due to discovery violations was proper.
• Bushman Constr. Co. v. Conner
  307 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1962-08-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that material facts exist regarding the formation date of the joint adventure and whether R.P.R. had notice of it, precluding summary judgment.
• Rudd-Melikian, Inc. v. Merritt
  282 F.2d 924· 6th Cir.· 1960-10-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a contract granting a distributorship within a specific territory does not, by implication, create an exclusive distributorship, especially when the contract is clear and unambiguous and does not contain language expressing or implying exclusivity.
• Spear v. MacDONALD
  67 So. 2d 630· Fla.· 1953-10-20 ·cited 36×
  Spear and others seek reformation of three deeds and a mortgage to correct mutual mistakes in property descriptions. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that equity courts have the power to reform instruments where all parties intended differen
• Blackner v. McDERMOTT
  176 F.2d 498· 10th Cir.· 1949-08-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the operating agreement between McDermott and Blackner extended to a new lease granted after the original expired, due to their joint efforts and intent.
• The Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfield
  53 Fla. 589· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 36×
  T. A. Winfield sued The Griffing Brothers Company for breach of a three-year lease contract to care for his orange grove while growing nursery stock between the trees. The trial court entered judgment for Winfield, and this appeal addresses twenty-two assignments of error challen
• Geo. W. Robinson & Co. v. Hyer Bros.
  35 Fla. 544· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 36×
  Robinson & Co. sold lumber to Hyer Brothers for delivery to European buyers under specific contracts. When the lumber proved defective, Hyer Brothers sought damages for breach and for Robinson's alleged promise to indemnify them against all loss. The Florida Supreme Court upheld
• Lambert v. The Berkley S. Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  680 So. 2d 588· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-09-11 ·cited 35×
  James Lambert and other commercial unit owners appealed a trial court's damage award in a breach of contract case against Berkley South Condominium Association. The trial court found the condominium's governing documents ambiguous and determined that a hallway should be reclassif
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co. & Grace Petroleum Corp.
  877 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-21 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find that Grace's failure to disclose the worthlessness of the Southwest Piney Woods field was material fraud, and that the punitive damages award was not excessive.
• State v. Kaufman
  430 So. 2d 904· Fla.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 35×
  Florida's Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision invalidating the drug trafficking statute (§ 893.135) based on alleged procedural defects in its legislative enactment. The Court held that legislative journals are conclusive evidence of proper passage and cannot be impeach
• Locafrance U. S. Corp. v. Intermodal Sys. Leasing, Inc.
  558 F.2d 1113· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 35×
  A release executed in a commercial context is generally interpreted by its plain language, but federal law governs the effect of a release on federal securities claims, requiring an inquiry into the releasor's intent regarding other joint tortfeasors.
• Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co.
  67 Fla. 324· Fla.· 1914-04-07 ·cited 35×
  Our Home Life Insurance Company sued W. I. Huffstetler on a promissory note for stock subscription payments. Huffstetler defended by alleging fraudulent misrepresentations and breach of warranty regarding the stock's value and future appreciation, but the trial court sustained th
• Booth v. Lenox
  45 Fla. 191· Fla.· 1903-01-01 ·cited 35×
  Esther L. Booth challenged a partition decree that recognized her deceased husband's children as owners of property that Esther had purchased with her own separate property. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a resulting trust was created when Esther's money paid fo
• MSP Recovery Claims v. QBE Holdings, Inc.
  965 F.3d 1210· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Addendum was inadmissible parol evidence, and while the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment could retroactively confer standing, the Series Assignment did not convey rights under it to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs lacked standing.
• Kaplan v. Bayer
  782 So. 2d 417· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-02-16 ·cited 34×
  The Kaplans appealed a trial court judgment denying them interest on an Agreement for Deed and ordering them to pay the Bayers' attorney's fees. The court affirmed the denial of interest but reversed the attorney's fees award, finding that the Agreement for Deed's incorporation o
• Imogene Varnes v. Dawkins
  624 So. 2d 349· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-09-14 ·cited 34×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint, finding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for equitable title to real property. The court emphasized that a motion to dismiss requires accepting all factual allegations as true, and that
• Astor Chauffeured Limousine Co. v. Runnfeldt Inv. Corp.
  910 F.2d 1540· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the § 12(2) claim was time-barred, but that the contract did not preclude claims for fraud in the inducement and that the jury's finding of materiality was supported by evidence. However, a new trial was ordered due to the erroneous submission of a claim incon
• L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc. v. United Eng'rs & Constructors Inc.
  880 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the parties' conduct waived the formal change order requirement, estopping the subcontractor from relying on it. The court also affirmed the district court's findings regarding scheduling and co
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  802 F.2d 969· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 34×
  The National Labor Relations Board erred in dismissing the union's unfair labor practice charge because its decision lacked a coherent rationale and failed to properly consider the stringent test for waiving statutory rights.
• Tinker v. De Maria Porsche Audi, Inc.
  459 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-04 ·cited 34×
  A used car purchaser bought a defective Jaguar through fraud and sought to rescind the contract and recover damages. The court held that fraud in the inducement cannot be barred by a conspicuous warranty disclaimer in the sales contract, and that the seller's fraud constitutes a
• LEE v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  552 F.2d 447· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar proof of the oral agreement and that the agreement was not too vague to be enforceable, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Havner H. Parish, Jr. v. Howard
  459 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the partnership agreement's termination provisions were unambiguous and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact or prejudice from discovery or oral argument rulings.
• Eastmount Constr. Co. & Am. Sur. Co. v. Transp. Mfg. & Equip. Co.
  301 F.2d 34· 8th Cir.· 1962-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a subcontract's ambiguity regarding the quantity of topsoil required the admission of extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent, and that interest was properly awarded on the liquidated amount due.
• Fairbanks v. Consol. Fisheries Co.
  190 F.2d 817· 3d Cir.· 1951-07-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that descriptive language in a contract specification constitutes an express warranty and that disclaimer clauses did not negate this warranty, nor did a written acceptance for installation waive the breach of warranty claim. The court also held that a disclaimer c
• N. Am. Graphite Corp. v. Allan
  184 F.2d 387· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a plaintiff is not required to elect between remedies of breach of contract and quasi-contract, and that the contract's payment terms were not contingent on successful operation.
• Bateman v. Donovan
  131 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1942-11-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdict and in vacating its order granting a new trial, as the issues presented were for the jury and juror affidavits cannot impeach a verdict based on internal mistake.
• Anderson v. Ax
  104 Fla. 294· Fla.· 1932-02-18 ·cited 34×
  Anderson executed a promissory note to Ax for $10,085.00 and sought to defend against her enforcement suit by claiming the note was delivered conditionally as a mere memorandum of her cash contribution to a property purchase, not as a binding debt obligation. The Florida Supreme
• Siever v. BWGaskets, Inc.
  669 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2009-10-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the FDUTPA and fraud claims, and that the contract language is unambiguous regarding the defendants' duty to protect territories.
• Saunders Leasing Sys., Inc. v. Gulf Cent. Distrib. Ctr., Inc.
  513 So. 2d 1303· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-09-18 ·cited 33×
  Saunders Leasing System appeals a $572,000 judgment for breach of contract and fraud after Gulf Central rejected delivered trucks and repudiated a vehicle lease agreement. The court reversed, finding that Gulf Central anticipatorily repudiated the contract without proper notice a
• Martin v. United States
  649 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim because it was contractual in nature and exceeded $10,000, thus falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
• Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson GIN Co.
  512 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Riegel was a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the individual farmer contracts and that the contracts' quantity terms were sufficiently definite under the UCC to be enforceable, and that denying enforcement due to failure to qualify to do business in
• Clayman v. Goodman Props., Inc.
  518 F.2d 1026· D.C. Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the petition for rehearing was denied because the option agreement's requirement for the optionees to assume half the mortgage debt was a joint obligation, and this condition was not met by only one optionee assuming the debt.
• Genesco, Inc. v. Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  341 F.2d 482· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that ordinary contract principles, not federal labor law policy, govern contract formation in this case, and no contract was formed.
• Grapes v. Mitchell
  159 So. 2d 465· Fla.· 1963-11-15 ·cited 33×
  Three daughters of Sam Mitchell sought to enforce a resulting trust over their late father's property, which he had managed on their behalf after their mother's death but later failed to distribute before dying and leaving his entire estate to his second wife. The Florida Supreme
• Betz v. Bank OF Miami Beach
  95 So. 2d 891· Fla.· 1957-06-12 ·cited 33×
  Howard Betz signed promissory notes below the corporate name "Corvette of Miami, Inc." without any indication that he signed in a representative capacity. The Florida Supreme Court held that Betz is personally liable as a maker of the notes as a matter of law under the Uniform Ne
• Jacksonville Paper Co. v. The Smith & Winchester Mfg. Co.
  147 Fla. 311· Fla.· 1941-05-27 ·cited 33×
  Smith & Winchester Manufacturing Company sued Jacksonville Paper Company in replevin to recover custom-built machinery that the buyer refused to pay for and return. The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the sale was 'on approval' (title retained by seller) or 'sale or retur
• Cyprian T. Jenkins v. Lykes
  19 Fla. 148· Fla.· 1882-06-01 ·cited 33×
  Jenkins purchased a contract from Atkinson for red cedar timber on land owned by Ferguson's estate in July 1877, with a reasonable time to cut and remove it. When Atkinson later sold the land to Lykes and Barco in October 1878, Jenkins continued cutting cedar. The Florida Supreme
• Hobbs v. Hobbs
  518 So. 2d 439· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-01-12 ·cited 32×
  In this divorce modification appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's clarification that the marital home award included a second adjacent lot, but reversed the contempt finding against the husband for non-payment of a joint debt, holding that
• Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank OF Or., N.A.
  815 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 32×
  The jury verdicts for the bank on common law fraud claims collaterally estop prosecution of RICO claims based on mail fraud predicate acts.
• Canada DRY Corp. v. Nehi Bev. Co.
  723 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's finding of liability for breach of contract and award of compensatory damages were supported by sufficient evidence, but reversed the verdict for illegal discrimination and the award of punitive damages.
• Hiestand v. Geier
  396 So. 2d 744· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-03-24 ·cited 32×
  Martha Geier sought to establish a resulting trust in proceeds from the sale of Sun State Oil Company, claiming she had purchased a half-interest from the Hiestands for $57,000. The trial court imposed a resulting trust in her favor, finding by clear and convincing evidence that
• Rosetta Drisdom v. Guar. Tr. Life Ins. Co.
  371 So. 2d 690· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-05 ·cited 32×
  A mother appealed a directed verdict denying insurance coverage for her daughter's medical expenses after the child was injured during a YMCA-sponsored track event on an adjacent elementary school playground. The court reversed, holding that the insurance policy's term "school" w
• Call Carl, Inc. v. BP OIL Corp.
  554 F.2d 623· 4th Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that plaintiffs could appeal the directed verdict on their antitrust claim but not the remittitur on their fraud claim, and that the fraud claim failed due to improper damage instructions and insufficient evidence.
• Borough OF Lansdale v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  494 F.2d 1104· D.C. Cir.· 1974-03-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission cannot authorize rate increases inconsistent with a fixed-rate contract without an evidentiary hearing showing the contract rates are not in the public interest, even if the contract has not been filed.
• Klapmeier v. Telecheck Int'l, Inc.
  482 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury award for damages was excessive and not supported by substantial evidence, requiring a new trial on damages. However, liability on other grounds was affirmed.
• Healy v. Atwater
  269 So. 2d 753· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-11-21 ·cited 32×
  This appeal concerns whether a trial court properly struck affirmative defenses based on the parol evidence rule in a real estate broker's commission dispute. The court reversed the trial court's order striking the defenses, holding that Florida recognizes an exception to the par
• The Chase Manhattan Bank v. The First Marion Bank
  437 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to admit parol evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding and duration of the subordination and standby agreement, as such evidence was necessary to explain and supplement the written terms.