Lapierre v. Cabral

The issues presented in this case are whether the trial court erred in concluding that the contract between the plaintiff and a third party was assignable to the defendant and in refusing to admit parol evidence regarding possible financing conditions applicable to the plaintiffs and the defendant’s contract of assignment. While we rule that the court should have admitted parol evidence, we find that the defendant did not sustain his burden of proof, and therefore, we affirm.

The plaintiff, Roland Lapierre, is a real estate developer in Nashua, New Hampshire, and the defendant, Richard Cabral,…