Bib Audio-Video Products v. Herold Marketing Associates, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDWARD J. MULALLY, Judge. *
Appellant Graphics Technologies purchased goods from respondent Bib Audio Video in October and November of 1992 and has failed to pay for the goods. Appellant asserts that the parties entered into an oral stock rotation agreement that permits appellant to return slow-moving merchandise. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent on the basis that the parol evidence rule bars evidence of the alleged oral agreement. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Graphics Technologies (Graphics) seeks relief from summary judgment ordering Graphics to pay Bib…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- National City Bank of Minneapolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Compania Sud-Americana De Vapores S.A. v. IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stead-Bowers v. LangleyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- The Grandoe Corporation v. Gander Mountain CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995