Fenestra, Inc. v. Merle Patnode Co.

Two issues are presented on this appeal:(1) Whether the findings of the lower court were against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.(2) Whether the parol-evidence rule required the exclusion of the letter of June 9,1966.

The contract involved is the purchase order of defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent. Appellant contends that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff because it did not comply with the above contract.

The purchase order reads, “Fenestra ‘D’ Panel as per plans and specifications Roof Decking.” Thus the plans and…