Legal Opinion
Bartel v. Associated Dental Supply Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 16, 1952No. Civ. 15273PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment against it in the sum of $17,650 for rent and attorney’s fees under a written lease.
Contentions op the Parties
No attack is made on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment, if parol evidence was admissible. Plaintiff contended and the trial court found that paragraph 33 of the lease was ambiguous and uncertain, and therefore parol evidence was admissible to show that the parties intended by it that the right of defendant lessee to either cancel or obtain a reduction of rent was conditional as limited in the second part of that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barham v. BarhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Body-Steffner Co. v. Flotill Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Jegen v. BergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Wells v. WellsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- MacIntyre v. AngelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1954
- Schmidt v. MacCo Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Associated Lathing & Plastering Co. v. Louis C. Dunn, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Berg Metals Corp. v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Denver D. Darling, Inc. v. Controlled Environments Construction, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.