The Laths were the owners of a farm that they wanted to sell. Mrs. Mitchell considered purchasing the land but found that an ice house located across the road was objectionable. Mitchell argued that the Laths orally agreed to remove the ice house in consideration of her promise to purchase the property, which she agreed to purchase for $8,400 in a written contract. After Mitchell moved into her new home and made several improvements to the land, the Laths never removed the ice house and expressly communicated their intention not to do so. Mitchell sued the Laths for breach of contract. What effect does the parol evidence rule have on the admissibility of the oral agreement to remove the ice house? Why this effect?
Answer to relevant QuestionsHunt Construction Corporation hired National Wrecking Corporation as a subcontractor to a larger project that Hunt oversaw. National Wrecking agreed to finish its work by February 12, 2004. Around the deadline, Hunt learned ...In 1991, EnerSys entered into an agreement with Exide Technologies to purchase substantially all of Exide's battery business for about $135 million. To formalize this sale, the parties entered into more than 23 agreements. ...The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a three- year contract in which the defendant would be the sole supplier of steel parts that the plaintiff used in its products. A dispute arose after the defendant sought to ...Grimberg sold a famous painting to Cohen for $785,000. Possession of the painting passed to Cohen but payment was never made. Despite various and sundry attempts to resolve the issue, Grimberg never received payment or got ...Explain the reason behind the need for negotiable instruments.
Post your question