PAN AMERICAN BANCSHARES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID L. TRASK, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support an oral contract and that the jury properly considered the differing terms.
Appellant, the defendant below, appealed a jury verdict, arguing insufficient evidence for an oral contract due to a "meeting of the minds" issue. The…
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 Admissibility Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the defendant in the trial court. It appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict. Five points are presented for our consideration. The thrust of appellant’s primary argument contends that the evidence was insufficient to support an oral contract because the evidence demonstrated a difference of understanding pertaining to the terms of the contract, and therefore there was no “meeting of the minds.” Our review of the record convinces us that the question of the exact terms of the contract was properly submitted to the jury. Each party testified to the creation of a contract, the only disagreement being related to a variance in understanding as to certain terms. Therefore the cause was properly submitted to the jury. See Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGough, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 227.
Appellant’s second point urges error as a result of the court’s ruling upon the admissibility of certain testimony, while the third point urges error upon the court’s denial of a motion for new trial. Neither one of these points presents reversible error because no violation of an established rule of law has been shown, and the rulings made were within the special province of the trial judge.
The fourth point urges error in the assessment of costs, but we find that the allowance of the items noted was within the court’s discretion. Cf. Cohn v. Florida National Bank at Orlando, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So.2d 767.
Appellant’s fifth and final point claims that the jury verdict was a compromise verdict and that the court erred in failing to set aside the verdict. Appellant has failed to show any fact indicating a compromise verdict except that the verdict was in round figures. Such an argument is not sufficient.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
ST. JOE Corp. v. McIVER, 875 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2004)…sion. Generally, where the parties acknowledge creation of a contract and the disagreement concerns their varying understandings about certain terms, such questions are properly submitted to a jury. See, e.g., Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The next issue is whether and how the parties to an oral contract can orally modify it. It is well established that the parties to a contract can discharge or modify the contract, however made or evidenced, through a subseq…
-
Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…than one construction. Because the provision is ambiguous, it was proper to submit the issue to the jury for resolution as a matter of fact. Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1952); Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). There was no error in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict. See, e. g., Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Bruce Construction Corp. v. The State Exchange Bank, 102 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1958); Behar v. Root, 3…
-
Cmty. Design Corp. v. Antonell, 459 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ease Financial Corp., 302 So. 2d 404, 408 (Fla.1974); Burton v. Keaton, 60 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1952). When the existence of a contract is clear, the jury may properly determine the exact terms of an oral contract, Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), which often depend on the credibility of the witnesses. While the exact amount of the bonus2 and the degree of completion required3 were disputed, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an oral contract between the pa…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGOUGH, 195 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Cohn v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Orlando, 223 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)