Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Contract & Bus.) 416.16

Disputed term(s) in the contract should be given the meaning used by people in that trade, business, or technical field unless the parties agree that the disputed term(s) should have another meaning.

SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES FOR 416.16

1. Contractual terms should be construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning unless the parties intended the contractual terms to have a different or special meaning. Madson v. Madson, 636 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

2. Contracts may be written in light of established custom or trade usage in an industry, and contracts involving such transactions should be interpreted in light of such custom or trade usage. The responsibility for determining trade usage is customarily one for the jury. Fred S. Conrad Construction Co. v. Exchange Bank of St. Augustine, 178 So.2d 217, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).

3. Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to explain technical terminology even if the contract is unambiguous. NCP Lake Power, Inc. v. Florida Power Corp., 781 So.2d 531, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

4. Evidence showing the meaning of technical terms is not an exception to the parol evidence rule because it does not vary or contradict the written instrument, but merely places the fact finder in the position of the parties when the contract was made. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A. v. Higginbotham Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., 445 So.2d 347, 348-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).