Legal Opinion
Hield v. Thyberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 27, 1984No. C3-83-511PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONETT, Justice.
Although the trial court properly allowed plaintiff to use parol evidence to explain the purpose and vary the term of a written contract, we conclude, on the facts of this ease, that plaintiff should have been required to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence. We reverse for a new trial.
On June 10, 1977, plaintiff-respondent Willard R. Hield sold his half interest in a corporation, Beauticians Supply, Inc., to defendant-appellant Edwin R. Thyberg, owner of the other half interest. The sale was accomplished by a written document entitled “Assignment,” signed by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Lorraine Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Anderson v. KammeierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Flynn v. SawyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Material Movers, Inc. v. HillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Hruska v. Chandler Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- MTS CO. v. Taiga Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Nave v. DovolosCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.