PEPLAX MEDICINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
TAMPA DRUG COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Peplax Medicine Company sued Tampa Drug Company for breach of contract involving the sale of pepsinol, a patent medicine. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the defendant, holding that the written purchase orders, when accepted and fulfilled, constituted a complete binding contract that could not be varied by parol evidence of alleged prior oral agreements regarding advertising.
The court held that the written orders, coupled with acceptance and delivery of the goods, comprised a complete binding contract that precluded parol evidence from varying its terms. The prior oral representations regarding an advertising campaign were inadmissible to modify the written contract because they were made weeks before the orders and lacked specificity.
“extrinsic or parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, subtract from, add to or vary a valid written instrument”
Statement of the foundational parol evidence rule that governed the court's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeplax Medicine Company, a Tennessee corporation, was the manufacturer and distributor of pepsinol. Tampa Drug Company, a Florida corporation, was its…
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 Delivery Of Goods cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Peplax Medicine Company, a Tennessee corporation, sued Tampa Drug' Company, a Florida corporation, in a civil action for $12,000.00 damages.
Verdict and judgment for defendant resulted, and the plaintiff took writ of error. Perplax Medicine Company was manufacturer and distributor of a patent medicine called “pepsinol.”
Tampa Drug Company was its general sales agent for this State, and purchased from the plaintiff by written orders a certain amount of pepsinol, such written orders being the basis of this suit. On behalf of the plaintiff: there was a replication filed to the seventh, eighth and ninth pleas to the declaration of the defendant.
The theory of the replication is that the written orders for pepsinol coupled with delivery constitute a complete written contract, and that parole evidence cannot be introduced to vary or contradict its terms.
Demurrer to the replication was sustained as to the ninth plea.
The order of the court sustaining* the demurrer to the replication as to the ninth plea and the admission of testimony over the objection of the plaintiff, which had the effect of varying the terms of the written orders for pepsinol, are all the assignments necessary to be considered in this connection.
These two assignments are numbered 5 and 8 in the transcript, and are resolved by a determination of whether or not the written orders for pepsinol coupled with acceptance and delivery of the goods ordered constitute a complete written contract.
The written orders for pepsinol are as follows : “Order No. Feb. 12th 1920 PEPLAX MEDICINE COMPANY Memphis, Tenn. Send to Tampa Drug Co., P. 0.
Tampa, Fla. State Fla. Ship.
Pt...............When..............
Ship via Express.
Jobber Terms 1-2 30 das. 25 Gro.
Pepsinol, $115.20.
Gro. less 16 2/3%. Feb. 23, 1920.
No. 1517.
There is no agreement other than specified in writing.
Signed Copp, Salesman.” “Order No.........................19......
PEPLAX MEDICINE COMPANY Memphis, Tenn. Send to Tampa Drug Co., P. 0.
Tampa State Fla. Ship.
Pt............... .. .When..................
Ship yia............... .................
No. 1441 Jobber Feb. 9, 1920 1440 Terms 30 days. 25 Gro.
Pepsinol, $115.20.
Gro.
Less 16 2/3 %. 10 Gross by express. 15 “ “ freight. 15 “ 2% 60 das.
There is no agreement other than specified in writing.
Signed Copp, Salesman. “Order No. Feb. 24th 1920 ' PEPLAX MEDICINE COMPANY Memphis, Term.
Send to Tampa Drug Co. P. 0.
Tampa State Fla. Ship.
Pt............... .
When Ship via...............
Jobber .................
Terms 50 G-ro.
Pepsinol, $115.20 Payment as follows: y2 April 1st. y2 May 1st.
Mar. 3 — 1920.
No. 1531 There is no agreement other than specified in writing.
Signed Copp, Salesman.”
Copp was the agent of the buyer, the Tampa Drug* Company.
We are of the opinion that when these orders were accepted by the plaintiff and delivery made under them, they comprised all the elements of, and were a complete binding contract.
They were the repository and evidence of the final intention of the parties thereto.
There were parties capable of contracting, terms and assent thereto on the part of both parties were stated and all ‘ ‘ agreements other than specified in writing” are precluded.
It is contended by defendant that these orders were given on the strength of representations by plaintiff to the effect that plaintitff would put on an advertising campaign sufficient to move the pepsinol.
No specifications were stated as to the extent of.the advertising campaign, the representations with reference thereto were made verbally by plaintiff’s salesman weeks prior to> the date of the written orders and are therefore without effect to vary or modify the written memorials of a complete contract.
The record shows that considerable advertising was actually done, and since the orders were given weeks after it was alleged that plaintiff agreed to put on the advertising campaign, the presumption is that such advertising was being done satisfactory to' defendant.
The books tell us that the parole evidence rule is in no sense a rule of evidence, but it is a rule of substantive law.
Prof.
Thayer in speaking on the subject says that “few things are darker or fuller of subtle difficulties.”
It is not a single rule or rule for things parole only.
It does not embrace all the rules that concern either parol or writing, nor does it carry the assumption that a writing can possess independently of the surrounding circumstances any inherent status or efficacy. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, par. 2400.
Withal this confusion and difficulty we think no rule of substantive law is better settled than that which declares that extrinsic or parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict, subtract from, add to or vary a valid written instrument. 10 R. C. L. par. 208, 1016 and cases cited; Perry v. Woodberry, 26 Fla. 84, 7 South.
Rep. 483; Milton v. Burton, 79 Fla. 266, 84 South.
Rep. 147; Inner Shoe Tire Co. v. Treadway, 286 Fed.
Rep. 838.
It is also contended by defendant that the written orders were unilateral, that they were not signed by plaintiff and that in other respects they indicate an incomplete transaction.
The answer to this contention is that the orders wex*e accepted and filled by the plaintiff, and -when so presented, accepted and filled, both parties thereto were put on notice that delivery of the goods would be and was made as per terms stated in these memorials of the completed instrument or final intentions of plaintiff and defendant.
We think the written orders for pepsinol coupled with acceptance and delivery import a complete legal obligation with no uncertainty as to the object or extent of the obligation between the parties, and there being no proof that such obligation was induced by fraud, accident or mistake, it is conclusively presumed that the contract was complete.
Seitz v. Brewers’ Refrigerating Mach.
Co., 141 U. S. 510, 12 Sup.
Ct.
Rep. 46.
For reasons here stated the order sustaining the demurrer to the replication as to the ninth plea and the consequent admission of testimony over the objections of the plaintiff, which had the effect of varying the terms of the completed contract here described, was error, for which the judgment below must be and is hereby reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knabb v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp., 144 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1940)…rms of a valid written contract. ITere the agreement for the purchase of the notes, as shown by the letters exchanged between the parties, is full and complete, clear and unambiguous. The rule stated in Peplax Medicine Company v. Tampa Drug Company, 88 Fla. 473, 102 Sou. 632, is applicable and is as follows: “The books tell us that the parol evidence rule is in no sense a rule of evidence, but it is a rule of substantive law. [*131] Prof. Thayer in speaking on the subject says that ‘few things are darker…
-
Pentland v. Pentland, 113 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…. In [*875] the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, the general rule is that oral evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 So. 992; Peplax Medicine Co. v. Tampa Drug Co., 88 Fla. 473, 102 So. 632; Florida Moss Products Co. v. City of Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656, 112 So. 572, 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 852. The only provisions of the Indenture of Trust concerning withdrawal or modification of the principal are as follows: “2. (e) Should th…
-
Everglade Lumber Co. v. Nettleton Lumber Co., 111 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1933)…the contract must regulate the amount of the- recovery. The rule is well settled that plaintiff may thus sue for amounts due to be paid for the price of goods bargained, sold and delivered on a special contract. Pepla Medicine Co. v. Tampa Drug Co., 88 Fla. 473; 102 Sou. Rep. 632; Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853; Smith v. Sharpe, 162 Ala. 433, 50 Sou. Rep. 381, 136 A. S. R. 52; Sands v. Potter, 165 Ill. 397, 46 N. E. 282, 56 A. S. R. 253; Jenney Electric Co. v. Branham, 145 Ind. 314, 41 N. E. 448,…1 / 3
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
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Mach. Co., 141 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1891)
- Perry v. Woodberry, 26 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1890)
- Milton v. Burton, 79 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1920)