Kryl v. Mechalson

Plaintiff contends that a violation of the parol-evidence rule would result from receipt of the offered proof. Defendant replies to the contention that it was offered, not to vary the terms of the writing, but to show that the paper was not to become effective as a contract until the consent of the union and the approval of Mr. Quaal had been obtained.

We agree with the trial court that the testimony should have been received. It was not offered to vary the terms of the contract. It was submitted as proof that the instrument should not take effect as a contract until the consent and approval…