Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Solary v. Stultz
  22 Fla. 263· Fla.· 1886-01-01 ·cited 23×
  Solary, a guarantor, guaranteed payment of a $200 bill for whiskey sold to Powers in exchange for 7.5% compensation. When Powers failed to pay, Stultz sued Solary for the full $200. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court judgment, holding that Solary's compensation wa
• Pinnacle Port Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Orenstein
  872 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate regarding the oral contract and adoption claims, but affirmed summary judgment on joint venture, partnership by estoppel, general estoppel, promissory estoppel, and negligence claims based on the stipulation's requirements.
• First State Bank OF Wayne Cnty. v. The City & Cnty. Bank OF Knox Cnty.
  872 F.2d 707· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the oral agreement to repurchase loan participations was unenforceable because it was not an independent collateral agreement and was barred by the parol evidence rule, and also because it violated federal public policy protecting the FDIC.
• U.S.I. Props. Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., Inc.
  860 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was properly established and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jurisdiction, evidence, or trial conduct.
• Secon Serv. Sys., Inc. v. ST. Joseph Bank & Tr. Co. & Jay Chodock
  855 F.2d 406· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Secón's claims were barred by the bankruptcy court's prior judgment and that the operating authorities were not securities under federal law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims seeking to pierce the corporate veil.
• Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Bokum Res. Corp. & Long Island Lighting Co.
  818 F.2d 1521· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court's confirmation of the bankruptcy court's judgment, and that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and contract interpretation were not clearly erroneous.
• Campbell v. Campbell
  489 So. 2d 774· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-04-29 ·cited 22×
  The court reversed a trial court's order interpreting a will provision regarding partnership interests in a family business, finding that the will language was ambiguous and entitled the appellants to present extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent. The case illustrates when
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Blue Rock Shopping Ctr., Inc.
  766 F.2d 744· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 22×
  A co-maker of a negotiable instrument who has a right of recourse against the primary obligor is considered a surety and can assert the defense of unjustifiable impairment of collateral under UCC § 3-606(1)(b).
• Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd.
  760 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding that the denial of the motion to amend was proper due to prejudice, summary judgment on fraud and negligence claims was warranted by lack of evidence, and reformation was unavailable.
• Howard v. Howard
  467 So. 2d 768· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-04-11 ·cited 22×
  Sarah Howard appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to enforce a separation agreement between her and Mark Howard and in various property and support determinations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refus
• Walker v. KFC Corp. & Heublein, Inc.
  728 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that promissory estoppel is inapplicable when the alleged reliance is bargained-for consideration supporting a contract, and that jury instructions on fraudulent concealment were prejudicially erroneous for failing to require a finding that the defendant knew the o
• United States v. Vahlco Corp.
  720 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the future advances clause in the deed of trust unambiguously secured the subsequent line of credit, and that Vahlco's collateral impairment defense was unavailable to a note maker, while Magnum's estoppel defense against the SBA was barred. Therefore, the dir
• LeSUEUR Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc.
  660 F.2d 342· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a jury's negligence verdict can be sustained even with other claims, and that damages must be reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of contributory negligence as required by statute.
• In re Beverly Hills Bancorp v. Hine
  649 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in reforming the settlement agreement without a request and in interpreting 'interest earned' and the cap increase provisions contrary to the agreement's plain language.
• Chandler Supply Co. v. GAF Corp.
  650 F.2d 983· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an untimely jury trial motion and that its findings regarding contract termination, antitrust violations, and inventory valuation were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Midwest Constr. Co. & Reliance Ins. Co.
  619 F.2d 349· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that parol evidence was admissible to clarify ambiguous contract terms and that attorney's fees were recoverable under Texas law in a diversity action, but not under the Miller Act absent bad faith. Interest accrual on retainage is not stopped by merely filing a mo
• AYR v. Chance
  372 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-07-11 ·cited 22×
  This appeal concerns whether a broad release executed by plaintiffs in settlement of personal injury claims against some defendants also released other defendants, despite the plaintiffs' intent not to release them.
• Luria Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Pielet Bros. Scrap Iron & Metal, Inc.
  600 F.2d 103· 7th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a contract for sale of goods can be formed through conduct recognizing its existence, even if writings contain differing terms, and that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict a final written agreement.
• Sharlitt v. Gorinstein
  535 F.2d 282· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that summary judgment on the counterclaim was improperly granted sua sponte without proper notice to the opposing party, violating Rule 56.
• Local 783, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  471 F.2d 751· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 22×
• Jaeco Pump Co. v. Inject-O-Meter Mfg. Co.
  467 F.2d 317· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's findings on breach of contract damages and unfair competition were supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not err in submitting these issues to the jury.
• Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 994· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove reliance on the government's mistaken pre-bid information, and therefore is not entitled to recover.
• In re Mitchell v. Shepherd Mall State Bank & Small Bus. Admin.
  458 F.2d 700· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a security agreement's classification boxes, without explicit granting language, do not create a security interest in collateral not otherwise described.
• Choy v. Bouchelle
  436 F.2d 319· 3d Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions were inadequate and constituted plain error, requiring a new trial.
• EL Ranco, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Nev.
  406 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts on the contract and conspiracy claims were supported by sufficient evidence, and that various procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the appellants were without merit.
• HML Corp. v. Gen. Foods Corp.
  365 F.2d 77· 3d Cir.· 1966-09-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule barred oral assurances from modifying the written contract, and that in a requirements contract, the buyer's good faith determination of requirements is sufficient, placing the burden on the seller to prove bad faith.
• Richardson v. Walsh Constr. Co.
  334 F.2d 334· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to contradict a written compensation agreement and in failing to instruct the jury on the significance of the agreement.
• United States v. Alexander
  326 F.2d 736· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-17 ·cited 22×
  The admission of secondary evidence (a copy and parol testimony) to prove the specific terms of a check, without producing the original or adequately explaining its absence, violated the best evidence rule.
• McNALLY v. Am. States Ins. Co.
  308 F.2d 438· 6th Cir.· 1962-09-28 ·cited 22×
  The majority's interpretation of the insurance policy impermissibly added coverage for which no premium was paid and which was specifically excluded.
• Farmer v. Arabian Am. OIL Co.
  285 F.2d 720· 2d Cir.· 1960-12-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order for a $6,000 costs bond, sought four years after the action began and when the plaintiff had shown a prima facie case, was an abuse of judicial discretion and denied the plaintiff his day in court.
• Farmer v. Arabian Am. OIL Co. (a
  277 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict for the defendant, as issues of parol evidence, statute of frauds, and agent's authority were improperly decided as a matter of law.
• Williams v. Elmer T. Faile and wife
  118 So. 2d 599· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-01-27 ·cited 22×
  Homebuyers appeal a judgment for the unpaid balance of a real estate purchase price. The court reversed the judgment, holding that the sellers failed to satisfy Florida's Statute of Frauds because there was no written memorandum signed by the defendants evidencing the full terms
• Allen v. W. H. O. Alfalfa Milling Co.
  272 F.2d 98· 10th Cir.· 1959-11-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that oral testimony based on personal knowledge is admissible to prove damages in a patent infringement suit, even if writings exist, and that the damages allocation was sufficiently supported by the evidence.
• American-Foreign S.S. Corp. v. United States
  265 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a retired judge who participated in an in banc hearing before retirement remains competent to participate in the decision thereafter reached, and that the case should be remanded for determination of jurisdiction and merits without constraint from prior preced
• Petroleum Fin. Corp. v. Cockburn
  241 F.2d 312· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the telegram exchange was ambiguous regarding the timing of Cockburn's title delivery obligations, and thus no breach occurred when Cockburn did not deliver present title.
• Hauer v. Thum
  67 So. 2d 643· Fla.· 1953-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's order striking from the defendants' answer allegations that the written construction contract was fraudulent and entered into to deceive a lender in violation of Federal Regulation X. The court held that such allegations of fraud
• Gaylord v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue (two cases)
  153 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1946-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trust was revocable under California law, making its income taxable to the grantors, and affirmed the Tax Court's findings regarding stock valuation.
• United States v. Dakota Tractor & Equip. Co.
  125 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1942-01-07 ·cited 22×
  A contract restricting only cash dividends, while permitting stock dividends, does not qualify for the surtax credit under Section 26(c)(1) of the Revenue Act of 1936.
• Jones v. Shomaker
  41 Fla. 232· Fla.· 1899-01-01 ·cited 22×
  Violet Jones, a longtime domestic servant, was bequeathed land for life with remainder to her children under her employer's will, but an execution creditor purchased the same land at a sheriff's sale. The Florida Supreme Court held that a creditor who accepts a testamentary provi
• Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith
  610 So. 2d 597· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-11 ·cited 21×
  Frank Griffin Volkswagen sold Smith a Volkswagen with effective warranty disclaimers, and Smith later sought to revoke acceptance based on defects. The court held that Griffin's proper disclaimer of all warranties meant the automobile was not "nonconforming" under the Uniform Com
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Sunrise Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hemmerle
  592 So. 2d 1110· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-23 ·cited 21×
  The FDIC, as receiver for a failed savings and loan, appealed a judgment against it on a Second Guaranty claim, arguing that appellees' fraud defenses and counterclaims were barred by the parol evidence rule, merger clause, res judicata, and estoppel by judgment. The court revers
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.
  798 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over The London Club due to insufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana, but affirmed the reformation of the indemnity agreement based on mutual mistake.
• Childress v. Cook
  245 F.2d 798· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-18 ·cited 21×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, states that the record does not support entering a judgment for the cross-claimant for $10,000.
• Bendix Home Appliances, Inc. v. Radio Accessories Co.
  129 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1942-06-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the original contract, terminable at will, was unenforceable, but the amended contract for a fixed term was valid and binding. The judgment for breach of the original contract was reversed, while the judgment for breach of the supplementary contract was affirm
• Solary v. Webster
  35 Fla. 363· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff on a bond indemnifying against construction claims, holding that the first count of the declaration failed to allege sufficient damage and that the trial court erroneously sustained demurrers to valid special pleas r
• L & H Constr. Co., Inc. v. Circle Redmont, Inc.
  55 So. 3d 630· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-02-04 ·cited 20×
  L & H Construction appeals a judgment finding it breached a subcontract with Redmont for manufacturing and installing a cast-iron staircase and glass flooring system at a historic site. The trial court found the contract was ambiguous regarding whether Redmont would perform compl
• Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp.
  967 So. 2d 281· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-26 ·cited 20×
  Barco Holdings appeals four summary judgment orders arising from a complex dispute over Terminal Island property rights. The central issue was whether Bernuth Agencies could exercise a purchase option in its lease after failing to exercise a right of first refusal, and whether Be
• Romeo v. Romeo
  907 So. 2d 1279· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-08-10 ·cited 20×
  Beverly Ann Romeo appealed a summary final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to James John Romeo. The court reversed, holding that the summary judgment was improper because the record lacked sufficient factual support and proper foundation for the documents relied upon, and
• Dryden v. Pedemonti
  910 So. 2d 854· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-04-15 ·cited 20×
  Dryden appeals the trial court's rejection of his settlement proposal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, which sought attorney fees after a jury verdict. The court affirmed, holding that the proposal's release language was ambiguous regarding whether it would extinguish
• Slotnick v. Slotnick
  891 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-12-15 ·cited 20×
  A marital settlement agreement's executory provisions are abrogated by remarriage unless the agreement contains an explicit statement—using clear language addressing reconciliation or remarriage—that the parties intended otherwise. The trial court also committed reversible error