LARRY ZUCKERMAN AND BETH ZUCKERMAN, PETITIONERS,
v.
A & B WINDOW AND GLASS, INC., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners seek second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court appellate division per curiam affirmance of a county court judgment, entered after we remanded the case for reconsideration of the appeal. See Zuckerman v. A & B Window and Glass, Inc., 930 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), review denied, 911 So. 2d 792 (Fla.2005).
Although, as an original matter, we might conclude that the county court judgment and therefore its affirmance by the circuit court were erroneous, we cannot say that they so far departed from the essential requirements of law as to result in a miscarriage of justice, as is required to justify our review at this stage. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla.2003); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla.2000); S. Motor Co. of Dade County v. Doktorczyk, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 2520682, (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D05-2244, opinion filed, September 1, 2006)[31 Fla. L. Weekly D2277], We therefore deny relief.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 112 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2013)…red by the statute of frauds to be in writing cannot be orally modified.” Id. at 545; see also Shore Holdings, Inc. v. Seagate Beach Quarters, Inc., 842 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Similarly, the Third District held in Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So. 2d 218, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), “the statute of frauds prohibits the oral modification of a contract for the sale of land under the doctrine of promissory es-toppel.” This Case Based on the precedent described above, we conclude that the Fourth District…1 / 2
-
Henley v. MacDONALD, 971 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…r change in this Contract shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless in writing and executed by the parties intended to be bound by it.” This language prevents an oral waiver or modification of the closing date. See, e.g., Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Rybovich Boat Works, Inc. v. Atkins, 587 So. 2d 519, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, “under certain circumstances, written contracts can be modified by a subsequent oral agreement of the parties even though the written contract…
-
All Seasons Condo Assoc. v. Patrician Hotel, 274 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ermore, the plain language of the Supplemental Contracts and the Master Purchase Agreement establish that the parties agreed not to allow a waiver or modification of any contractual term without first reducing it to writing. See Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So. 2d 218, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding a contract provision that provided “[m]odifications of this Contract will not be binding unless in writing, signed and delivered by the party to be bound” was language that prevented an oral waiver or modification to…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen, 911 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2005)
- Zuckerman v. A & B Window & Glass, Inc., 930 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Dupree v. State, 930 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)