Plastic Dynamics Corp. v. Lincoln Investment Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Plastic Dynamics Corp. v. Lincoln Investment Corp.

232 So. 2d 213, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6780

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 1970·No. No. 69-584·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered for the defendants at the conclusion of a non-jury trial. The single point presented urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied plaintiff’s proffer of extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties to the contract. The proffer consisted of testimony that the parties intended Philip R. Consolo would be personally liable on a contract.

The decision of the trial court that the contract is not ambiguous and that Consolo was not personally liable is amply supported by the holding in Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 761.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered for the defendants at the conclusion of a non-jury trial. The single point presented urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied plaintiff’s proffer of extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties to the contract. The proffer consisted of testimony that the parties intended Philip R. Consolo would be personally liable on a contract.

The decision of the trial court that the contract is not ambiguous and that Consolo was not personally liable is amply supported by the holding in Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 761.

Affirmed.

Plastic Dynamics Corp. v. Lincoln Investment Corp., 232 So. 2d 213, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6780 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

232 So. 2d 213 (Plastic Dynamics Corp. v. Lincoln Investment Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related