SB ICE STEAK, LLC, ETC.
v.
THE STERLING BUILDING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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.
When a contract plainly provides that modifications must be in writing, claims founded upon alleged oral modifications must be disposed of as a matter of law.
[1] When a written contract contains an unambiguous provision requiring all modifications to be in writing and signed by the party to be bound, claims alleging oral modificat…
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 intelligence“when a contract plainly provides that any modification must be in writing, all claims—however labeled—founded upon an alleged oral modification should generally be disposed of as a matter of law.”
Citation to Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc., 145 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
SB Ice Steak, LLC appealed a circuit court decision in a contract dispute with The Sterling Building, Inc. The case involved a question of whether an …
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 Oral Modification Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 14, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1848 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-26233-CA-01 ________________
SB Ice Steak, LLC, etc., Appellant,
vs.
The Sterling Building, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.
Saul Ewing LLP and Hilda Piloto, for appellant.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Mark F. Raymond and Shane P. Martin, for appellee.
Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Affirmed. See Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc., 145 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[W]hen a contract plainly provides that any modification must be in writing, all claims—however labeled— founded upon an alleged oral modification should generally be disposed of as a matter of law.”); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So. 2d 218, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Where the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, summary judgment is appropriate . . . the record establishes that the parties agreed not to allow a waiver of any contractual term without putting it in writing . . . the contract clearly states that ‘modifications of this Contract will not be binding unless in writing, signed and delivered by the party to be bound.’ Thus, this language prevents an oral waiver or modification . . . .); DTRS Intercontinental Miami, LLC v. A.K. Gift Shop, Inc., 77 So. 3d 785, 786-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes . . . provides, ‘Failure of the tenant to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order shall be deemed an absolute waiver of the tenant's defenses’ . . . ‘The law is the law. It is not our job to carve exceptions into an otherwise clear and imperative statute.’”) (citations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zuckerman v. A & B Window & Glass, Inc., 943 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Messer v. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs., 145 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Owin Drummond v. State, 77 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)