AFFIRMED.

dissenting.

In my opinion there was an ambiguity as concerns the written contract. Thus, parole testimony should have been allowed to explain the intent of the parties. I would reverse upon authority of Royal American Rlty. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co., 215 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) and Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1952).