JUDSON J. HARRIS D/B/A HARRIS REFRIGERATION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION, 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.
Harris sued Air Conditioning Corporation for breach of an alleged oral contract granting him an exclusive sales agency for ice-cubers. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant, holding that the evidence was equally consistent with both the existence and non-existence of the oral modification to the written contract, precluding a jury finding of acceptance and performance of a differing agreement.
The judgment for the defendant was affirmed because the evidence at trial was equally consistent with both hypotheses—the existence of the oral modification or its non-existence—and therefore no jury could lawfully conclude that both parties accepted and acted upon an agreement differing from the original written contract.
“a written contract or agreement may be altered or modified by an oral agreement if the latter has been accepted and acted upon by the parties in such manner as would work a fraud on either party to refuse to enforce it.”
Establishes the exception to the rule that parol agreements cannot modify written or sealed instruments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris and Air Conditioning Corporation had a written sealed contract under which Harris was a non-exclusive sales agent for the defendant's products,…
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
SEBRING, Justice.
The appellant, Judson Harris, doing business as Harris Refrigeration Company, instituted an action at law against the appel-lee, Air Conditioning Corporation, for breach of an alleged oral contract for an exclusive sales agency as to a particular product of the appellee, namely, “ice-cubers,” handled by appellant. Upon defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of testimony the court reserved its ruling until after a jury verdict had been returned for the plaintiff, and then ruled that the motion for directed verdict should be granted. From the entry of a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, this appeal has been taken.
It is conceded that there existed a written contract under seal between the parties by the terms of which the appellant was to act as non-exclusive sales agent for certain of appellee’s products, including the “ice-cubers” involved in this litigation. The appellant contended, however, that subsequently the appellee agreed that if appellant would do certain advertising, promotional work, servicing, and would hire one Wynn as salesman, then he could be the exclusive dealer for “ice-cubers,” subject to revocation by thirty days’ notice.
The testimony of the parties upon this point is in direct conflict, appellee denying that there was any such understanding. There was evidence presented that appellant was in fact the only dealer handling the item in question for some length of time, although appellee had permitted other sales on occasion. Appellant claimed that the appellee’s breach.ultimately became known, to him when sales were made by others to parties whose names appeared on a “prospect list” which appellee borrowed from appellant for advertising purposes.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction “ * * * that an executory or parol agreement'will not be permitted to abrogate or modify a written, or sealed instrument, but [the] rule is not without its exceptions. A written contract or agreement may be altered or modified by an oral agreement if the latter has been accepted and acted upon by the parties in such manner as would work a fraud on either party to refuse to enforce it.” Carter Realty Co. v. Carlisle, 113 Fla. 143, 151 So. 498, 499, and authorities cited. Accord Tussing v. Smith, 125 Fla. 578, 171 So. 238; Moses v. Woodward, 109 Fla. 348, 140 So. 651, 141 So. 117, 147 So. 690.
In its order setting aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and entering judgment for the defendant, it was apparently the view of the court below that the only circumstances under which the exception stated. above could be invoked would be where “the actions of the parties are consistent with the supposition of [a modifying agreement] and inconsistent with [the original contract.].” Upon a careful consideration of the opinions, such would appear to be the situation in each of the above cited, cases where an oral modification of a written or sealed contract has heretofore been held effective in this state. And from the finding of the trial court herein, fully sustained by the record, that “the evidence is quite as consistent with one hypothesis as the other,” it necessarily follows that there is no proof from which a jury could lawfully conclude that both parties accepted and acted upon an agreement differing from their original contract. Cf. City of Miami Beach v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14 So. 2d 172; Little v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So. 2d 899.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…ve accepted the oral agreement and acted upon it in such a manner as would work a fraud on either party in the event the court refused to enforce it. Professional Insurance Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So. 2d 916 (Fla.1956); Harris v. Air Conditioning Corp., 76 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1955). These cases are beside the point because they refer to the rule that a subsequent parol agreement can always modify a written agreement. 3 S. Gard, supra, § 16:10, at 101. The oral agreement in this case was made prior to or contemporane…
-
Prof'l Ins. Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1956)…for the same holding in Carter Realty Co. v. Carlisle, 1934, 113 Fla. 143, 151 So. 498, and Tussing v. Smith, 1936, 125 Fla. 578, 171 So. 238. In the recent case of Judson J. Harris d/b/a Harris Refrigeration Co. v. Air Conditioning Corp., Fla.1955, 76 So. 2d 877, this Court adhered to the same ruling, citing the above authorities. An oral modification under these circumstances is permissible even though there was in the written contract a provision prohibiting its alteration except in writing. 17 C.J.S., Co…
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Sunrise Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hemmerle, 592 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…the trial court stated in its order that denied Hemmerle’s motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment: [Appellee] claims that there was a later promise for an extension. [Appellant], on that point, relies upon Harris v. Air Conditioning Corporation, 76 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1955), which states: ‘[T]he only-circumstances under which the exception stated above could be invoked would be where the actions of the parties are consistent with the supposition of [a modifying agreement] and inconsistent with [the original…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami Beach v. The Miami Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107 (Fla. 1943)
- Mauck v. Therrell, 108 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1933)
- Dodd Lumber & Timber Co., Inc. v. Krusen Land & Timber Co., 105 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1932)
- Adelaide v. Moses, 109 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1932)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. Brown, 153 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1943)
- Tussing v. Smith, 125 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1936)
- Horatio Little v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1943)
- Duncan v. Davis, 109 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1933)
- Carter Realty Co. v. Carlisle, 113 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1933)