GUY B. BAILEY, PETITIONER,

v.

DERRICO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Polk v. Crittenden, 537 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
  …ourts require that proof of an oral agreement which varies the terms of a written document must be “clear, precise and indubitable” before the parol evidence rule may be lifted. Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1973), quoting Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654, 164 So. 674 (1935). In our view, Crittenden’s proofs do not rise to this level, even had they been presented at trial. Further, the supreme court stated in Mallard that the trier of fact must find…
• Coscan Fla., Inc. v. Equiventure Florida, 567 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
  …usiness 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 c…
• Brunsco v. Noonan, 456 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …b). City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc., 370 So. 2d 829, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We affirm the court’s denial of Noonan’s motion for additur on the authority of Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1973). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find that they are without merit. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict in favor of Noonan.…