In 2003, Rasmussen agreed to sell Deschamps a mobile home trailer park in Great Falls, Montana, with 96 residential spaces for $1,445,000. The contract explained how Deschamps would pay Rasmussen over time. Right after the sale was completed, Rasmussen died and his estate inherited his assets. Deschamps found significant problems with the trailer park water systemthat required $400,000 in repairs. In 2006 Deschamps quit making payments to the estate, claiming that the cost of the water system repairs made payments impossible. The estate sued for payment; Deschamps sued for breach of contract and fraud, contending that Rasmussen told him the water systemwas in good condition and that the occupancy ratewas higher than it was in fact. The trial court held for the estate, finding that Deschamps' claims were precluded by the parol evidence rule. He appealed.

1. What is the key lesson from this case-and many others like it? Do you think the court believed that Rasmussen never made the claims that Deschamps claimed?
2. Would Deschamps' claim of fraud, a tort, avoid the parol evidence rule?