Jupiter Square S.C. Associates, Inc. v. Tomary, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1950,89-1950 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 538 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2979 JUPITER SQUARE S.C. ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. TOMARY, INC., a Florida corporation, and Thomas Bashwiner, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kenneth G. Spillias of Shapiro & Bregman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ronald E. Jones of Ronald E. Jones, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
This appeal questions a judgment in favor of appellees-lessees for anticipatory breach of a lease agreement by appellant-lessor. While there are good arguments made regarding the disposition of a motion for summary judgment and some evidentiary rulings, we choose to address the dispositive issue of whether or not the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the case. We hold that the court erred and reverse.
A lengthy dissertation of facts is unnecessary. The salient facts to the point on appeal are that the parties entered into a lease agreement for space in appellant's shopping center. Taking the facts most favorable to appellees, shortly after the signing of the lease the parties entered into discussions with respect to the improvements required of the appellant under the lease, and an oral modification of the lease was made. However, this oral modification violated the integration clause of the written lease which prohibited oral modification of the lease. The law states that:
[a] written contract ... may be altered or modified by an oral agreement if the latter has been accepted and acted upon by the parties in such manner as would work a fraud on either party to refuse to enforce it.... An oral modification under these circumstances is permissible even though there was in the written contract a provision prohibiting its alteration except in writing.
Professional Insurance Corporation v. Cahill, 90 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla.1956). See also King Partitions v. Donner Enterprises, 464 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
The appellees claim that it took actions in reliance on the oral modification. However, the actions upon which it relies were matters which were necessary for appellees to perform under the original written lease. Therefore, even if the evidence supports the position that the oral agreement was accepted, it was not "acted upon by the parties in such manner as would work a fraud on either party to refuse to enforce it." Professional Insurance Corp....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc.
...So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); W.W. Contracting, Inc. v. Harrison, 779 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jupiter Square S.C. Assocs., Inc. v. Tomary, Inc., 571 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); King Partitions & Drywall, Inc. v. Donner Enters., Inc., 464 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Commerce Nat'......
-
DK Arena, Inc. v. EB ACQUISITIONS I, LLC
...established in Florida. See, e.g., Prof'l Ins. Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So.2d 916, 917-18 (Fla.1956); Jupiter Square S.C. Associates, Inc. v. Tomary, Inc., 571 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Here, like the purchaser in Blue Paper, EB relied on the extension of the due diligence period in its eff......
-
Blue Paper, Inc. v. Provost
...779 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see Prof'l Ins. Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla.1956); Jupiter Square S.C. Assocs., Inc. v. Tomary, Inc., 571 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). these circumstances, an oral modification may be permissible even where, as here, a written contract co......
-
Arvilla Motel, Inc. v. Shriver, 2D04-1395.
...So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Prof'l Ins. Corp. v. Cahill, 90 So.2d 916 (Fla.1956), and Jupiter Square S.C. Assocs., Inc. v. Tomary, Inc., 571 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). An oral modification is permissible even when "the written contract contains a provision prohibiting its......