ISOT MEDICAL CENTER CORP v. CHAPTAL GROUP INC (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

ISOT MEDICAL CENTER, CORP., Appellant, v. CHAPTAL GROUP, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D19-2253

Decided: September 09, 2020

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

Berger & Hicks, P.A., and Martin I. Berger, Zachary A. Hicks, and Adam C. Loeb; Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and William D. Mueller, for appellant. Sheldon R. Rosenthal, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Babul v. Golden Fuel, Inc., 990 So. 2d 680, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding: “ ‘[W]here․ there is an ambiguity on the face of a contract as to the capacity of parties and their relationship with one another and the surrounding circumstances when they entered into the agreement, the court is proper in receiving parol evidence’ ” (quoting Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976))). See also Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, 208 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (holding that “parol evidence is admissible to identify the real parties in interest in a transaction”); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.01 cmt. c (2006) (providing: “Unless the contract explicitly excludes the principal as a party, parol evidence is admissible to identify a principal and to subject the principal to liability on a contract made by an agent. The parol-evidence rule does not bar proof that an agent made a contract on behalf of a principal.”)

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network