Parol Evidence and Interpretation

Question 1

Mitchill v. Lath

Answer 1

Prior agreement may be bound to a latter agreement if (1) the prior agreement is collateral in form; (2) it does not contradict the provisions of the latter agreement; and; (3) it is not an agreement that would normally be included in the latter agreeement

Parol Evidence Rule

Question 2

Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram

Answer 2

If oral collateral agreements are separate and relating to the same subject (unintegrated) they are are allowed to be proved by parol because they were never committed to writing.

Parol Evidence Rule

Question 3

PG&E v. GW Thomas Drayage & Rigging

Answer 3

Test of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written insttrument is whether the offered evidence is relevant to proving the meaning to which the language is reasonably susceptible

Interpretation

Question 4

Trident Center v. Conn. General Life Ins.

Answer 4

Regardless of how unambiguous the meaning of the contract appears to be the court must permit the submission of extrinsic evidence to interpret the language.

Interpretation

Question 5

Raffles v. Wichelhaus

Answer 5

The Peerless - if no consensus is reached on the meaning of the terms of the agreement, there is no binding contract

Interpretation

Question 6

Nanakuli Paving v. Shell Oil

Answer 6

Trade usage may be allowed to interpret an agreement as the context for the agreement so long as it does not negate it. Course of dealing or usage of trade may also be used.

Interpretation