From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Fla. Power Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 6, 1972
267 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-459.

October 6, 1972.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Oliver, C. Maxwell, J.

John Germany and C. Lawrence Stagg of Holland Knight, Tampa, for appellant.

Wm. Reece Smith, Jr. of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler, Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant appeals a final summary judgment entered against it in a suit arising out of a written contract.

The able trial judge, after taking voluminous testimony, ruled that the contract was not ambiguous and therefore refused to consider the parol evidence.

We hold that the contract itself was ambiguous in its terms and upon considering the parol evidence genuine issues of material fact as to the correct interpretation of the language of the contract were created. This being the case, it was error to enter a final summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

McNULTY, J., dissents with opinion.


I must respectfully dissent. There are no latent ambiguities in the contract herein, when read as a whole, which would render its terms amenable to parol for clarification.


Summaries of

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Fla. Power Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 6, 1972
267 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Fla. Power Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. FLORIDA POWER…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 6, 1972

Citations

267 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Tampa Electric Co. v. Stone Webster Engineering Corp.

Westinghouse points to troublesome inconsistencies in TECO's theory. If this Court were to hold as a matter…

Griffin Builders Supply v. Jones

We have held that an ambiguous contract creates genuine issues of material fact as to the correct…