Magnetic Copy Services, Inc. v. Seismic Specialists, Inc.

Judge RULAND

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

In my view the majority opinion adopts a rule for this jurisdiction which I am unable to reconcile with prior appellate decisions relating specifically to admission of parol evidence.

Parol evidence of written or oral negotiations prior to execution of a written con*1166tract is admissible for a limited purpose such as, for example, to establish the reason for entering into the written agreement. See Tarr v. Hicks, 155 Colo. 159, 393 P.2d 557 (1964). However, if, as here, no objection is made to the admission of this evidence, I believe it must be…