S. H. TARAN, ALSO KNOWN AS SAMUEL H. TARAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SEA COAST APPLIANCE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 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.
Taran appealed a summary judgment against him on a personal guaranty he issued for Record Service Company's account with Sea Coast Appliance Distributors. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the guaranty was continuing in nature and not limited to the ten or fifteen days mentioned in the letter.
The guaranty was continuing in nature and not limited to ten to fifteen days. The written terms of the guaranty, being unambiguous, absorbed any prior oral agreements, and the trial court's summary judgment was proper.
“The guarantor prepared the guaranty and its terms are unambiguous which, being such, its written terms absorb any prior oral agreements.”
Establishes that written guaranty terms control over oral discussions and the parol evidence rule applies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaran, as defendant in the trial court, issued a written guaranty letter to Sea Coast Appliance Distributors guaranteeing monies due or extended in th…
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 Unambiguous Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an adverse summary final judgment rendered against him because of a guaranty he issued to the appellee, in words and figures as follows:
“Mr. Phil Abel
Sea Coast Appliance Dist., Inc.
3575 N. W. 60th Street
Miami, Florida
“Dear Mr. Abel:
“Concerning my telephone conversation of today regarding the Record Service Company account, I have explained to you on the telephone that I am in the midst of completing arrange*275ments for sufficient finances for all the record companies that I am involved with, which I will consolidate into one corporation.
“In the meantime, I am reaffirming my statement that I will personally guarantee any monies due you now or extended in the future to Record Service Company and as I told you over the phone, there is a matter of ten or fifteen days at which time we should have sufficient capital to bring our account in current position.
Yours very truly,
PAN AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING CORP.
[s] S. H. TARAN S. H. Taran”
The trial court held that the guaranty was of a continuing nature and not limited to ten to fifteen days, as contended by the appellee. We concur with the trial judge. The guarantor prepared the guaranty and its terms are unambiguous which, being such, its written terms absorb any prior oral agreements. See: Ross v. Savage, 66 Fla. 106, 63 So. 148; Prescott v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass’n, 133 Fla. 510, 183 So. 311, 119 A.L.R. 525; Bryant v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corporation Niagara Chemical Division, Fla.App. 1961, 130 So.2d 132. A contract of guaranty is generally construed against a guarantor; particularly is this so when it was prepared by him. See: Hawkins v. Mitchell, 34 Fla. 405, 16 So. 311; Brandon v. Pittman, 117 Fla. 678, 158 So. 443; 30 Fla.Jur., Suretyship and Guaranty, § 32.
Therefore, there being no error shown in the summary final judgment rendered by the trial court, same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warner v. Caldwell, 354 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…fore it and accordingly, find that no error has been committed. Mohasco Industries, Inc. v. Maxwell Company, Inc., 425 F. 2d 436 (5th Cir. 1970); Keyser v. Brunette, 188 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Taran v. Sea Coast Appliance Distributors, Inc., 164 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Royal Kitchen Cabinet Corporation v. Palcic, 111 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Finally, appellants claim error on the part of the trial judge in both admitting certain exhibits into evidence during the course of the trial and ta…
-
LEA Indus., Inc. v. Raelyn Int'l, Inc., 363 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…bility could attach under the guarantee. The contract of guarantee was submitted by defendants on a form prepared by them. In such a situation, the guarantee is to be construed against the guarantor. Taran v. Sea Coast Appliance Distributors, Inc., 164 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). By its terms, the guarantee is an unconditional and continuing one which could be revoked only by the means specified therein, i. e., by the returned receipt of a certified or registered letter. No revocation occurred. Was the a…
-
Chase Manhattan Bank v. E.B. Rood, 698 F.2d 435 (11th Cir. 1983)…guaranty contract was executed. Such parole evidence of intent was not admissible. Parol evidence may not be used to create ambiguity in an unambiguous agreement. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Taran v. Sea Coast Appliance Distributors, Inc., 164 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla.DistCtApp.1964) (if unambiguous, a guaranty’s “written terms absorb any prior oral agreements”). Anderson and Honey dictate the result in this case. Rood’s letter was unequivocal; it simply stated, “[t]his letter is to serve as my persona…
Authorities Cited
- Ross v. Savage, 66 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1913)
- Prescott v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 133 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1938)
- Bryant v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp. Niagara Chem. Div., 130 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Hawkins v. Mitchell, 34 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1894)
- Brandon v. Hermia Pittman and Lottie Hartsfield, 117 Fla. 678 (Fla. 1934)