Leitz v. Thorson

This case concerns the admissibility of parol evidence. The majority holds that the trial court’s conclusion that the lease agreement was not fully integrated is supported by the evidence. Then it decides that the alleged oral agreement was not inconsistent with the written agreement. Because the question of whether the oral agreement was *563inconsistent with the written agreement is a necessary prerequisite to the question of whether the agreement was integrated, and because the oral agreement is inconsistent with the written agreement, as a matter of law, I dissent.

In O’Meara v. Pritchett, 97…