Daniel Systems, Inc. v. Carswell
372 So. 2d 201, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15331
Opinion
We affirm the judgment below on the authority of the rule stated in Florida Moss Products Co. v. City of Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656, 112 So. 572, 574 (1927):
“Where the consideration sought to be shown by parol is purely contractual in its character and imposes upon one of the parties an additional contractual obligation repugnant to the plain terms of the written contract, parol proof may not be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing such additional obligation, since parol evidence is no more admissible to vary or add to the written instrument in that respect than it is in any other.”
Accord: Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654, 164 So. 674 (1936); Bond v. Hewitt, 111 Fla. 180, 149 So. 606 (1933); Whitehead v. Rowland, 352 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1978); Maszewski v. Piskadlo, 318 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Daniel Systems, Inc. v. Carswell, 372 So. 2d 201, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).
372 So. 2d 201 (Daniel Systems, Inc. v. Carswell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Maszewski v. Piskadlo
318 So. 2d 226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Mallard v. Ewing
164 So. 674 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Bond v. Hewitt
149 So. 606 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Florida Moss Products Co. v. City of Leesburg
112 So. 572 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Whitehead v. Rowland
352 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)