Legal Opinion

Gammon Enterprises, Inc. v. Vanguard Investment, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 6, 1984No. CA 1228PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REDMANN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the maintaining of an exception of prematurity to its suit on a written contract of compromise. The exception argued that an unwritten suspen-sive condition, provable by parol evidence, was not fulfilled and therefore the suit was premature.

We reverse. Although parol may be admitted to prove a non-integrated side-agreement, or to show fraud or mutual mistake, nonfulfillment of a suspensive condition may not be the basis for the dilatory exception ground of prematurity.

If indeed the contract must be reformed, on the basis of parol, to contradict its…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. H. B. Claflin Co. v. B. Feibelman & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1892
  2. Halbert v. Klauer Mfg. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1938

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sidney Stokes, Cross-Appellant v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  2. Duvio v. Specialty Pools Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Pyburn v. Walle Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Gammon Enterprises, Inc. v. Vanguard Investment, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API