Legal Opinion
San Roque Properties, Inc. v. Pierce
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 6, 1937No. Civ. 11037PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
‘1 It has been held many times that a written agreement may be abrogated by an oral contract and that in such a case section 1698 (of the Civil Code) has no application.” (Dugan v. Phillips, (1926) 77 Cal. App. 268, 277 [246 Pac. 566], citing cases.) This is true, even where the subject matter of the written contract is the sale and purchase of real estate. (Tompkins v. Davidow, (1915) 27 Cal. App. 327 [149 Pac. 788] ; Haberman v. Sawall, (1925) 72 Cal. App. 576 [237 Pac. 776].) The fact that one of the signatories is a corporation does not make the rule inapplicable.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Klein Norton Co. v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Dugan v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Producers Fruit Co. v. GoddardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Tompkins v. DavidowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Grant v. the Aerodraulics Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Hastings v. MatlockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Gaido v. TysdalWyoming Supreme Court · 1951
- Lawrence v. Keokuk Steel Casting Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
- Post v. Palpar, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.