Crow-Spieker 23 v. Robinson

OPINION

Appellant, Crow-Spieker #23 (hereinafter #23), filed suit against respondent seeking specific performance of an alleged right of first refusal extended to #23 by respondent Robinson. The lower court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment concluding that the parol evidence rule excluded the introduction of any evidence of consideration for the first right of refusal. Because we find that the parol evidence rule was improperly applied, we reverse.

THE FACTS

In the early part of 1973, #23 and respondent Robinson entered into negotiations for the sale of a 24 acre parcel of land,…