Becker v. Lagerquist Bros., Inc.

(dissenting)—In my opinion, the majority has abrogated the parol evidence rule in Washington while giving recognition to its present existence. Furthermore, no effect is given to the so-called “merger clause” contained in each of the several earnest-money agreements involved. The majority summarily disposes of this feature of the agreements by reference to, and quotation from, Gronlund v. Andersson, 38 Wn. (2d) 60, 227 P. (2d) 741 (1951), wherein we said:

“. . . where the issue is whether a contract was procured by fraud, the doctrine that parol or other extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to…