Final written expression: parol or extrinsic evidence
Source:
Section 72.2020 — Final written expression: parol or extrinsic evidence, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors072.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Extrinsic evidence was admissible, under this section, to determine whether defendant signed contract in representative capacity. Jenks-White Seed Co. v. Riddell, 47 Or App 573, 614 P2d 1221 (1980)
Court does not have to find writing ambiguous before allowing admission of evidence of prior dealings. Jenks-White Seed Co. v. Riddell, 47 Or App 573, 614 P2d 1221 (1980)
Where merger clause which indicated contract was intended to be complete and exclusive expression of agreement was not conspicuous and to give it effect would be “unconscionable,” parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of express oral warranties. Seibel v. Layne & Bowler, Inc., 56 Or App 387, 641 P2d 668 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
When party admits to oral agreement related to and not inconsistent with written agreement, written agreement may not represent “complete and exclusive” statement of parties, and consistent additional terms from oral agreement may then be admitted. Deerfield Commodities v. Nerco, Inc., 72 Or App 305, 696 P2d 1096 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
To decide whether terms of contract are integrated in writing, court must consider all relevant circumstances to resolve preliminary issues of historical fact, then determine legal effects of those facts. Wescold, Inc. v. Logan International, Ltd., 120 Or App 512, 852 P2d 960 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Court determination on how court finding of fact regarding document and party intent affects admissibility of evidence is reviewable as matter of law. Wescold, Inc. v. Logan International, Ltd., 120 Or App 512, 852 P2d 960 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
28 WLR 223 (1992)