Brown v. Oliver: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of Kansas |citation=123 Kan. 711, 256 P. 1008 (1927) |date=1927 |subject=Contracts }} '''Relevant Facts'''Plaintiff and defenda...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Relevant Facts''': Plaintiff and defendant had a written agreement for the sale of land. The plaintiff claimed that they also had a separate agreement for the sale of furniture, which the defendant refutes. | |||
'''Issues''': Whether when there is a written contract which does not address a certain disjoint issue, whether parole evidence may be admitted in this case. | |||
'''Holding/Decision''': Judgment for the plaintiff. | |||
'''Rules''': Parole evidence may be introduced if there is no mention of the thing in question in the contract.The true purpose of contract law is to discover the intent to the parties upon contract formation. | |||
Latest revision as of 18:48, January 31, 2020
| Brown v. Oliver | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kansas |
|---|---|
| Citation | 123 Kan. 711, 256 P. 1008 (1927) |
| Date decided | 1927 |
Relevant Facts: Plaintiff and defendant had a written agreement for the sale of land. The plaintiff claimed that they also had a separate agreement for the sale of furniture, which the defendant refutes.
Issues: Whether when there is a written contract which does not address a certain disjoint issue, whether parole evidence may be admitted in this case.
Holding/Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff.
Rules: Parole evidence may be introduced if there is no mention of the thing in question in the contract.The true purpose of contract law is to discover the intent to the parties upon contract formation.
