Tischler v. Kurtz Bros.

Citations

• 35 Fla. 323

Syllabus

<p>1. The general rule is, that one partner lias no implied authority to bind the firm by an instrument under seal, but where such an instrument has been executed by one partner in the firm name in the scope of the partnership business it may be ratified by the other partner by prior or subsequent oral asset, or by implication from acts or declarations of such partners.</p> <p>3. A charge of the court to the jury, though asserting a correct proposition of law, will be error when there is not sufficient proof to sustain a verdict on the theory, of the case submitted to the jury by the charge.</p> <p>•3. While, as a general rule, a written contract not under seal may be varied by subsequent oral agreement based upon a sufficient consideration as to its terms to be performed in the future, the prevailing view, following the common law rule, is that a covenant or contract under seal can not be modified before breach by a parol executory contract.</p>