Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Equiventure Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Equiventure Florida

567 So. 2d 17, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6813, 1990 WL 129911

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2854

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 17 (Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Equiventure Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Equiventure Florida, 567 So. 2d 17, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6813, 1990 WL 129911 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Coscan Florida, Inc., defendant below, appeals from an adverse final judgment entered after jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Equiventure Florida on claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with an advantageous business 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 constructed. Under either analysis, the parol evidence was properly admitted. Second, we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to the denial of the jury instructions requested by Coscan. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Coscan Florida, Inc., defendant below, appeals from an adverse final judgment entered after jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Equiventure Florida on claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with an advantageous business 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 constructed. Under either analysis, the parol evidence was properly admitted. Second, we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to the denial of the jury instructions requested by Coscan. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 17, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6813, 1990 WL 129911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coscan-florida-inc-v-equiventure-florida-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack