Legal Opinion
Abercrombie v. Hayden Corp.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 27, 1994No. CC 9007-04517; CA A71590; SC S40809PublishedCited by 69 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtUnis, J.
This case raises issues concerning the application of the parol evidence rule, ORS 41.740, 1 the text of which is set out infra, 320 Or at 285-86, to certain quitclaim deeds.
In August 1989, plaintiffs contracted 2 to purchase various commercial properties from defendant for $22,350,000, pursuant to a written “Property Purchase Agreement.” Plaintiffs made an initial non-refundable $10,000 deposit and a deposit of $100,000 into escrow as earnest money. A “memorandum of the purchase and sale agreement” was recorded.
The property purchase agreement specifies a closing date, but provides that the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hatley v. StaffordOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Hanns v. HannsOregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Farley v. UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Security Bank v. ChiapuzioOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- American Contract Co. v. Bullen Bridge Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- Batzer Construction, Inc. v. John BoyerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- International Marketing, Limited v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Inc., and Swift-Eckrich, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Hulse v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSBDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2002
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.