PAULINE J. NOBLES, APPELLANT,
v.
CITIZENS MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A merger clause in an employment contract does not bar parol evidence of fraudulent inducement, and summary judgment for the defendant was therefore improper.
Oral representations may be introduced as evidence to prove fraudulent inducement of a contract despite a merger clause that purports to integrate all terms into the written agreement.
[1] A merger clause does not preclude introduction of parol evidence to establish that a contract was procured by fraud.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff entered into an employment contract with defendant and alleged that defendant made fraudulent oral misrepresentations to induce her to sign …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Merger Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant as to count II of plaintiffs complaint against defendant for damages. Count II was for fraudulently inducing plaintiff to enter into an employment contract. Count I, which was dismissed and is not before us on appeal, was for breach of that contract. We reverse.
The basis for the trial court’s ruling appears to have been that a so-called merger clause in the contract, under which oral representations were to be merged into and subsumed by the written contract, prevented the introduction of parol evidence as to the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by defendant to plaintiff. However, oral agreements or representations may be introduced into evidence to prove that a contract was procured by fraud notwithstanding such a merger clause. Cas-Kay Enterprises, Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Center, Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Pena v. Tampa Federal Savings & Loan Association, 363 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Accordingly, at this stage of the litigation it cannot be concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…erwise, fraud in the inducement. In such cases, [*786] the parol evidence rule does not preclude admission of extrinsic evidence. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Nobles v. Citizens Mortgage Corp., 479 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Florida Pottery Stores of Panama City v. American National Bank, 578 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Tinker v. De Maria Porche Audi, Inc., 459 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown…
-
Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ntract unenforceable, does not affect oral representations which are alleged to have fraudulently induced a person to enter into the agreement. Ortiz v. Orchid Springs Dev. Corp., 504 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Nobles v. Citizens Mortgage Corp., 479 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Cas-Kay Enters., Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Ctr., Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). And, when fraudulent misrepresentations in the formation of the contract are alleged, as is the case here, the economic loss rule does…
-
Fla. Pottery Stores OF Panama City, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 578 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…trial court correctly stated these general propositions, it did not take into account the exceptions which permit the use of parol evidence to demonstrate that the written contract was procured by fraud. See Nobles v. Citizens Mortgage Corporation, 479 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). It is also well established that parol evidence is admissible to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement which induced the execution of a written contract. See Wise v. Quina, 174 So. 2d 590, 596 (Fla.1965); Furlong v. First Nation…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pena v. Tampa Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 363 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Cas-Kay Enters., Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Ctr., Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)