ORANGE ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

MARIO PRESMAN AND FANITA PRESMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Milo Allett & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hill, 422 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
  …tten lease which, whether part of the preliminary negotiations or a separate subsequent condition, plainly violates, respectively, the doctrine of merger and the parol evidence rule which we explored in Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Company, 381 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Furthermore, the trial court erred in refusing the requested instruction on corrective measures. See, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Reed, 330 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Without determining whether the doctrine referred to…
• Polk v. Crittenden, 537 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
  …which precede or are contemporaneous with the execution of the written documents. All such variances or collateral matters are deemed to be superseded and merged into the written contract and documents. Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Company, 381 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Crittenden testified in his deposition and stated in his affidavits that [*160] these understandings were arrived at some time before or contemporaneous with the execution of the contract to purchase the grove. Crittenden argue…
• Quiring v. Plackard, 412 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …vidence regarding negotiations prior to execution of the mortgage was correctly excluded from this ease. All prior negotiations between the parties merged into the final written evidence of their agreement, Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Co., 381 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Financial Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Dade County v. Continental Enterprises, Inc., 338 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Window-master Corp. v. Jefferson Construction Co., 114 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), and parol evidenc…

Authorities Cited

• N. Inv. Corp. v. Coppock, 134 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1938)