evidencing an intention of the parties to incorporate the terms of the collateral document. Not only was the collateral document not attached to the contract, but Consolidated also was never at any time subsequent to the signing of the contract given a copy of the collateral document or the information contained therein. When a contract refers to another document, it must not only expressly refer to the document, but it must also sufficiently describe the document or “so much of it as is referred to, is to be interpreted as part of the writing.” Id. at 573 (quoting OBS Co. v. Pace Constr. Corp., 558 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla.1990)). Under these circumstances, Consolidated could not be obligated to arbitrate. See Gustavsson v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 850 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). We find no error in the trial court’s failure
holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that a bank customer was not bound to arbitrate where the signature card that was signed referenced a collateral document which contained an arbitration clause but the bank never sent the customer a copy of the collateral document holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check