Burns v. Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County

• Decision Date: 18 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. J--426,J--426
• Parties: Harry BURNS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 654

212 So.2d 654

Harry BURNS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. J--426.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 1968.

James E. Moore, Merritt Island, for appellant.

Estergren, Fleet & Fortune, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Chief Judge.

The Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County brought suit for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of its rights under a written contract entered into between it and defendant architect. From the final judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff board, this appeal is taken.

From the pleadings and evidence it affirmatively appears that plaintiff board contemplated the construction of two school gymnasiums in Okaloose County. Defendant's representative appeared before the board requesting that his firm be awarded the contract for architectural services in the construction of these buildings. The board in regular session considered defendant's request and adopted a resolution agreeing to award to defendant a contract for preparation of plans, drawings, and specifications necessary to construct the gymnasiums in question. A formal written contract was prepared and executed by the parties pursuant to which defendant agreed to perform all architectural services necessary in connection with the construction of the two gymnasiums. The school board, through the testimony of its witnesses, emphatically asserts that prior to the execution of the contract sit was clearly understood and agreed that the construction of the gymnasiums in question was contingent upon a school bond election which was to be held in the near future, and that unless the election was successful it would be impossible to go forward with the construction program. The school board established by its witnesses that defendant agreed that unless the school bond election was successful and issuance of the bonds authorized, then any expenses incurred by it in the preparation of plans and drawings for the buildings would be absorbed by it and the school board would not be called upon to reimburse the firm for such costs. This condition insisted upon by the board was emphatically denied by defendant architect.

By the judgment appealed the trial court found from the evidence that the favorable outcome of the school bond election was specifically made a condition precedent to the school board's liability for payment under its contract with the defendant. The court further found that since the condition precedent never occurred, that the school board incurred no liability for payment under the contract and therefore the claim made by the architect against the school board was without merit and would be denied.

The primary thrust of appellant's position on this appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting and considering parol evidence with respect to the alleged condition precedent for the purpose of altering, varying, or modifying the written contract between the parties. In support of its position appellant cites a number of authorities supporting the well-recognized principle of contract law to the effect that parol evidence will not be admitted to vary the terms and provisions of a written contract.

Although the principles of law relied upon by appellant to support his prayer for reversal of the judgment appealed are...