Williams & Associates v. Ramsey Products Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
Plaintiffs challenge the admission and consideration of parol evidence of negotiations held prior to the execution of the written agreement concerning size, cost and time of completion of the project. Generally, parol evidence may not be considered if its purpose is to vary, add to or contradict a written agreement on matters intended to be covered by the written agreement. As stated in Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 77, 79 S.E. 2d 239:
“A contract not required to be in writing may be partly written and partly oral. However, where the parties have deliberately put their…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Neal v. MarroneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Hite v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
3Cited by10 opinions
- Koontz v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999
- Beal v. KH STEPHENSON SUPPLY CO., INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Malo v. GilmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Catoe v. Helms Construction & Concrete Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- John D. Latimer & Associates, Inc. v. Housing Authority of the City of DurhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.