negotiations, and that the parties never actually entered into a contract (or, if they did enter a contract, it is unclear what that contract really included). However, there is much evidence that, except for slight alterations in the dollar amounts, the proposal was Gallagher’s offer and the Diocese agreed to it; there is really no material proof to the contrary. To win a reversal on this point, Gallagher must demonstrate a jury question on the following: that sometime after Gallagher presented the plan to the Diocese and before the Diocese agreed to it (with a few changes in dollar amounts), Gallagher withdrew its hen there is no meeting of the minds regarding the modification, such as when the parties did not discuss or agree to the change. See Williams Eng’g, 480 So.2d at 776 (<HOLDING>). The issue, then, becomes whether the Diocese
holding that because there was no discussion or agreement regarding change in engineers method of providing cost estimates to company that hired him there was no meeting of the minds and thus no modification as to how the engineer should provide cost estimates holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that there was no meeting of the minds as to expenses in the parties contingency fee contract and therefore the attorneys claim for reimbursement of litigation expenses was rejected holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that there was no abuse of discretion for denying the motion to change venue because although there had been some publicity surrounding the murder an independent review of the record demonstrates that there was no difficulty in seating the jury