Legal Opinion
Camargo Cadillac Co. v. Garfield Enterprises, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 17, 1982No. C-810243, C-810244, C-810245 and C-810248PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The principal question raised in these consolidated appeals is whether the parol evidence rule set forth in R.C. 1302.05 1 excludes from any consideration whatsoever an oral agreement about the mode of payment of a series of written contracts for the sale of automobiles. The trial court excluded all evidence of a claimed contemporaneous oral agreement about payment and entered summary judgment for the seller. We reverse.
Camargo Cadillac Company (Camargo) and Columbia Oldsmobile Company (Columbia) each sued both Garfield Enterprises, Inc. (Garfield) and Frank Messer & Sons Construction Co.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Atlantic Northern Airlines, Inc. v. SchwimmerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
- S. M. Wilson & Company v. Smith International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Blosser v. EnderlinOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Anderson & Nafziger v. G. T. Newcomb, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1979
- O'NEIL v. International Harvester Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. The Iams CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Ohio Savings Bank v. H. L. Vokes Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
- AMF INC. v. Computer Automation, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1983
- Abele v. Bayliner Marine Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1997
- General Motors Corp. v. Paramount Metal Products Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.