Reynolds v. Long
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Judge.
We recognize the rule that “parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written agreement.” Rogers v. Atkinson, 1 Ga. 12; Superior Pine Products Co. v. Williams, 214 Ga. 485 (106 SE2d 6). Here, however, there was no written provision as to a price limitation. Hence the evidence would not be an attempt to vary the plain and explicit provisions of a written contract as prohibited by the parol evidence rule. Instead, the principle would be applicable: “If the writing does not purport to contain all the stipulations of the contract, parol evidence shall be…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rogers v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Thomas v. EasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
- Hite v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1964
- Shubert v. SpeirSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. American Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Netsoft Associates, Inc. v. Flairsoft, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2015
- Netsoft Associates, Inc. v. Flairsoft, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2015