Legal Opinion
Betz Laboratories, Inc. v. Hines
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided May 5, 1981No. 80-2227PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*403OPINION OP THE COURT
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
The fraud exception to the parol evidence rule is the matter at issue in this appeal. In isolated instances, the Pennsylvania courts have held that with the presence of appropriate language in the writing, only evidence of fraud in omitting or adding certain provisions will qualify as an “exception” to the rule. More frequent, however, are decisions allowing evidence to show fraud induced a party to enter into what is on its face a comprehensive, written agreement. After reviewing the contentions of the parties, we conclude that the latter line of cases…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Danann Realty Corp. v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Bardwell v. the Willis CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Keystone Aeronautics Corporation, a Corporation v. R. J. Enstrom Corporation, a Corporation v. Foundry Allied Industries, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Nicolella v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Leroy D. Schoch v. First Fidelity Bancorporation and Industrial Valley Title Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Continental Insurance Co. v. Kenneth BodieCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Lyons, James v. U.S. Marshals Carlson, Norman, Director UnknownCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Farmer v. CarlsonDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- 1726 Cherry Street Partnership v. Bell Atlantic Properties, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.