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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 11, 1990·No. No. 89-2854·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

Pincite

567 So. 2d 17 (Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Equiventure Florida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related