Thompson v Libby - Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Brief...

Description

Parol Evidence (classical approach)

Thompson [log seller] v. Libby COURT AND DATE: Minnesota Supreme Court PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The trial court permitted Libby to introduce testimony for the purpose of proving a verbal warranty.

ISSUE: Can parol evidence be introduced to establish terms of a written contract that is intended to constitute the entire agreement or to prove that the written contract is not intended to constitute the entire agreement?

TRIGGER FACTS: Thompson (plaintiff) agreed to sell Libby (defendant) logs that he owned. The agreement was thereafter memorialized by a written contract. The written contract did not provide a warranty, including a warranty regarding the quality of the logs. Thompson filed suit and the matter went to trial. The trial court permitted Libby to introduce testimony for the purpose of proving a verbal warranty.

PLAINTIFF’S MAIN ARGUMENTS: DEFENDANT’S MAIN ARGUMENTS:

RULE (the law): When the written agreement is intended to be the entire agreement, parol evidence cannot be introduced to establish terms of the agreement and parol evidence cannot be introduced to establish whether or not the contract is intended to be the entire agreement.

HOLDING + REASONING: No. Parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or change the terms of a valid, written contract. When the written agreement provides certain terms intended to constitute the entire agreement, parol evidence regarding the agreement is inadmissible. However, when the writing does not provide the entire agreement on its face, parol evidence may be permitted. Whether the entire agreement is provided by the written contract cannot be established by parol evidence. The writing’s completeness must be determined by reviewing the contract itself. In the current matter, the trial court erred by admitting parol evidence of a warranty. The order refusing a new trial must be reversed.

Parol Evidence (classical approach)...