Legal Opinion

Lalanne v. Lalanne

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1981No. 8015DC1113PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Harry C.) Judge.

Defendant argues four questions on appeal. He first contends the court erred in admitting as evidence, over objection, correspondence and testimony regarding negotiations between the parties leading to the contract of separation. The parol evidence rule provides generally that any or all parts of a transaction prior to or contemporaneous with a writing intended to record them finally, are superseded and made legally ineffective by the writing, and evidence of the earlier transactions is inadmissible. 2 Stansbury’s N.C. Evidence § 251 (Brandis rev. 1973). However, if…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Root v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Munchak Corp. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Cole v. Industrial Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Whitaker v. EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Commercial National Bank of Charlotte v. Charlotte Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Rose v. RoseCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API