Case Name: PLASTIC DYNAMICS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. LINCOLN INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and Philip R. Consolo d/b/a Lincoln Investment Corp., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-03-03
Citations: 232 So. 2d 213
Docket Number: No. 69-584
Parties: PLASTIC DYNAMICS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. LINCOLN INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and Philip R. Consolo d/b/a Lincoln Investment Corp., Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 232
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
PLASTIC DYNAMICS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. LINCOLN INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and Philip R. Consolo d/b/a Lincoln Investment Corp., Appellees.
No. 69-584.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 3, 1970.
Smith & Mandler and Joe N. Unger, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward and Allan M. Glaser, Miami Beach, for appel-lees.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered for the defendants at the conclusion of a non-jury trial. The single point presented urges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied plaintiff's proffer of extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties to the contract. The proffer consisted of testimony that the parties intended Philip R. Consolo would be personally liable on a contract.
The decision of the trial court that the contract is not ambiguous and that Consolo was not personally liable is amply supported by the holding in Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 761.
Affirmed.