COSCAN FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EQUIVENTURE FLORIDA, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF I.T.S. CORP., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, AND H-G EQUITY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intentional Interference With Advantageous Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Coscan Florida, Inc., defendant below, appeals from an adverse final judgment entered after jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Equiventure Florida on claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship.
We affirm the final judgment.
First, we conclude that the parol evidence satisfied the standards of Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654, 164 So. 674, 678 (1935), and Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1973), and that the parol evidence was therefore properly admitted. Even if that were not so, there was a facial ambiguity in the contract with respect to the number of units to be constructed and the circumstances under which they were to be constructed. Under either analysis, the parol evidence was properly admitted.
Second, we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to the denial of the jury instructions requested by Coscan.
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)…Stinnett v. State, 576 So. 2d 927, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ("Faretta does not entitle a defendant to 'hybrid' representation; there is no constitutional right of a defendant 'to choreograph special appearances by counsel.' "); Studnicka v. Carlisle, 567 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("Petitioners who are represented by counsel should file pleadings only through counsel. A defendant who has court-appointed counsel may not act as co-counsel as a matter of right.”). .See Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974…
-
Land O'Sun Realty Ltd. v. Rewjb GAS Invs., 685 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…oses paragraphs 3 and 4 were respectively meant to serve was, despite the appellants’ protests, entirely correct. Royal Dev. & Management Corp. v. Guardian 50/50 Fund V, Ltd., 583 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Coscan Fla., Inc. v. Equiventure Fla., 567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 577 So. 2d 1325 (Fla.1991); Tropicana Club, Inc. v. James H. Topping, Inc., 502 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); First State Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Credit Auto Lease, Inc., 518 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Royal…
-
Smith v. State, 758 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ate. Further, it appears Smith was represented by counsel when he filed his pro se demand, so the demand must be deemed a nullity. See Salser v. State, 582 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993); Studnicka v. Carlisle, 567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1991). In conclusion, we note that Smith alleges his trial date was April 3, 2000. This petition was not perfected until April 7, 2000. Thus, the petition for prohibition may well be moot. Howe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1935)
- Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Atwater v. Healy, 275 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1973)
- Bailey v. Derrico Constr. Corp., 275 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1973)