Bredouw v. Jones

I respectfully dissent to the foregoing majority opinion.

No further statement of facts is required.

As claimed grounds of error, plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff advances three propositions. The first is that the court erred in permitting the introduction of parol testimony for the purpose of varying the terms of a written contract. I do not agree.

Plaintiff urges that certain decisions of this Court stand for the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of written agreements. There is, of course, a general rule of that effect.

However, the parol evidence rule…