Dail v. Vodicka

Mrs. Vodicka held a real estate salesman’s license. Nevertheless, both Mr. and Mrs. Vodicka claimed they did not read the merchantable title provisions of'either the listing agreement or the sale contract. Defendants contend this parol evidence was justified because the tax deed notation and the merchantable title provision of the agency agreement posed an ambiguity which needed explanation. In Christiansen v. Strand, 1965, 81 S.D. 187, 132 N.W.2d 386, we did hold that when a writing is uncertain or ambiguous, oral evidence is admissible to explain the instrument, and in Eggers v. Eggers,…