Legal Opinion

Claveau v. Plantier

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 31, 1960No. 4807PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

While the defendant denies that he made any oral agreement to supply additional materials to complete the unfinished house which he sold and conveyed to the plaintiff, he relies on the parol evidence rule to exclude such evidence in any event. Wells v. Jackson Iron Mfg. Co., 47 N. H. 235; Folsom v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 9 N. H. 355. “The justification of the Parol Evidence Rule is that when parties incorporate an agreement in a writing it is a reasonable assumption that everything included in the bargain is set down in the writing. Though this assumption in most cases conforms to the facts,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Levin v. CookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  2. Stevens v. MilestoneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Goglia v. RandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
  2. Sargent Lake Ass'n v. DaneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
  3. Gulezian v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API