Skip to main content
· 6/15/1902

Hinote v. Brigman

Citations

  • 44 Fla. 589

Syllabus

<p>CONTRACT—LATENT TERMS OR EXPRESSIONS IN MAY BE EXPLAINED BY PAROL—WHEN CONTRACT COMPLETE-CHARGES VARIANT PROM PLEADINGS.</p> <p>1. Where testimony is admitted that was not properly admissible at the time it was offered because its relevancy and pertinency was not then made to appear, the error in its admission is cured if its relevancy and pertinency be subsequently shown by other .evidence.</p> <p>2. Where words or phrases used in a contract have acquired a definite meaning generally or by local usage, or, when used in reference to certain things or commodities, have acquired a definite meaning among those dealing with such things or commodities, and the language used in the writing is such that the court does not understand it, oral testimony is admissible to explain the meaning of such words or phrases.</p> <p>3. If a party sought to he charged intended to close a contract prior to the formal signing of a written draft thereof, or if he signified such an intention to the other party, he will he hound by the contract actually made, though the signing of the/written draft be omitted. If on the other hand such party neither had nor signified such an intention to close the contract until it was fully expressed in a written instrument and attested by signatures, then he will not he hound until the signatures are affixed. If the written draft is viewed by the parties merely as a , convenient memorial, or record of their previous contract, its absence does not affect the binding force of the contract; if, however, it is viewed as the consummation of the negotiation, there is no contract until the written contract is finally signed.</p> <p>i. No recovery can be had upon a cause of action, however meritorious, or however satisfactorily proven, that is in substance variant from that which is pleaded by the plaintiff, and it is error for the court to instruct the jury that they they may find for the plaintiff upon an issue that is variant from those made by the pleadings

Judges: Being, Carter, Cttriam, Hocker, Referred, Took

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.