Citations
- 196 So. 2d 474
Full opinion text
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Niagara Therapy Manufacturing Corporation, from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Niagara ■Cyclo Massage of Miami, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “the distributor”, in an •action for breach of an exclusive distributorship contract.
On appeal, Niagara contends that the 'lower court erred in finding that certain paragraphs in the contract were ambiguous thereby justifying the admission of parol testimony. Niagara also contends that the jury verdict of $15,000.00 for the distributor is excessive and not substantiated by evidence in the record.
The contract between the parties was signed on Dec. 16, 1964. In April, 1965, an annual home show was being conducted at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami for a period of one. week. Miami is within the territory in which the distributor is exclusive distributor for the sale and distribution of the Niagara Massage equipment. During the show, Niagara, which had leased space and allotted a portion