Legal Opinion · Dissent
Hendricks v. Knik Supply, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided May 22, 1974No. 1894Published
1DissentErwin, Justice
I am unable to agree with my colleagues’ interpretation of Alaska’s parol evidence rule and its application in this case.1 I am also unable to accept their views regarding the effect of Roy’s delay in filing his claim for the bank account and bonds.
We purport to follow the objective theory of contract interpretation which we adopted in Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.,2 strayed from in Alaska Placer Co. v. Lee,3 and apparently returned to in Smalley v. Juneau Clinic Building Corp.4 Under this theory, a court interpreting a fully integrated written contract…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Austin v. Fulton Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1968
- Oxford Commercial Corp. v. LandauNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1965
- Silverton v. MarlerAlaska Supreme Court · 1964
- Smalley v. Juneau Clinic Building CorporationAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.