Conway v. 287 Corporate Center Associates
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
Justice WALLACE, JR.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented is whether the parol evidence rule bars admission of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a bonus provision in a lawyer’s retainer agreement when the written terms of the agreement appear to be clear. In the first trial of this matter, the court denied admission of extrinsic evidence to interpret the terms of the retainer agreement and found that the condition requiring a bonus, a zoning change, was satisfied. The Appellate Division reversed and held that the trial court should have considered extrinsic…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Atlantic Northern Airlines, Inc. v. SchwimmerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
- Kearny PBA Local 21 v. Town of KearnySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- 287 Corporate Center Associates v. The Township of Bridgewater, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
3Cited by114 opinions
- Globe Motor Company v. Ilya Igdalev(074996)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2016
- Manahawkin Convalescent v. Frances O'neill (071033)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014
- CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Regional Medical Center, L.P.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
- Mylan Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LPCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.