Legal Opinion

Continental Oil Co. v. Bell

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1933No. 7,028PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The parol evidence introduced by the defendants tending to prove a contemporaneous oral contract entered into by the agents of the plaintiff and the defendants to the effect that the price should be other than the written contract price was in violation of the parol evidence rule and, therefore, not admissible.(a) All conversations and parol agreements between the parties prior to or contemporaneous with the written agreement are so merged therein that they cannot be given in evidence for the purpose of showing a contract or understanding different from that expressed in the agreement. (Secs.…

2Cases cited60 opinions

  1. Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. West v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  3. Pearsall v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. WrightIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Cohn v. DunnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930

55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Tribby v. Northwestern Bank of Great FallsMontana Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Morrow v. Bank of America, N.A.Montana Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Ashley v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1991
  5. West River Equipment Co. v. Holzworth Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1959

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API