Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Pacific v. Drayage
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Redirected from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.)
Pacific v. Drayage | |
Court | California Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 69 Cal.2d 33, 69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641 |
Date decided | July 11, 1968 |
Facts
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. = "Pacific" = Pacific Gas and Electric Company = PG&E
- G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. = "Drayage" = a contractor
- Pacific hired Drayage to replace a turbine cover
- During the replacement, the cover fell & damaged the turbine rotor
- Repairing the rotor cost Pacific $25,000
- The contract between the 2 parties stated that Drayage would work at its own risk which included an indemnity clause
- Defendant agreed to work with the plaintiff to furnish him services and also agreed to work at his own risk and expense, and to indemnify the plaintiff against tall loss, damage, or expense resulting.
- The defendant stated that the intent of the contract was not to cover 3rd-party loss, although the language of the contract was plain.
Procedural History
Pacific sued Drayage for the cost of repairing the rotor.
The judge dis-allowed extrinsic evidence by Drayage to clarify the contract's meaning.
Drayage lost.
Drayage received a judgment as the party responsible for the rotor cost.Issues
In the face of seemingly clear contract language, may a court admit extrinsic evidence as proof of a different intention?
--
Whether parole evidence may be brought where there is a dispute as to what the intended meaning of the contract was, although the language of the written contract seems clear.Arguments
Pacific argued that Drayage had agreed--per the written contract--to reimburse Pacific for losses incurred as a result of Drayage's work.
Holding
Chief Justice Roger Traynor: Yes. Even under those circumstances, extrinsic evidence must be admitted to prove the parties' intention.
Judgment
Reversed for the defendant Drayage
Reasons
Traynor: The trial judge erred by refusing to accept Drayage's extrinsic evidence.
Rule
Because the judge is a person and understands words differently than the parties, parole evidence may be allowed which offers evidence of trade usage terms when there is a dispute to the written contract.
Resources