Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Long

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 9, 1967No. 42537PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Rogers v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
  2. Thomas v. EasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  3. Hite v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1964
  5. Shubert v. SpeirSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Davis v. American Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  2. Netsoft Associates, Inc. v. Flairsoft, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2015
  3. Netsoft Associates, Inc. v. Flairsoft, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API