LEE V. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC.
552 F.2d 447 (2nd Cir. 1977)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Seagram (D) appealed from a jury verdict for Lee (P) and the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict by D in P's action for common law breach of an oral contract governing the conditional sale of P's liquor distributorship.
FACTS: Lee (P) had a 37-year record of service with Seagram (D) and had even been one of its officers. P acquired a half ownership in a wholesale liquor distributorship and agreed to sell the distributorship to D. D orally promised to set up P's sons in a new distributorship in a location acceptable to P. The written contract did not refer to the oral agreement. D performed the contract according to the written terms but refused to perform the contemporary oral contract. P sued D. At trial, the court ruled that the contract was not completely integrated and allowed parol evidence about the contract because it did not contradict or alter the written contract. D did not refute the oral agreement. P was awarded damages and D appealed. D claimed that parol evidence should not have been admitted to prove the existence of the oral agreement.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment