stating that whether a contract is integrated for purposes of applying the parol evidence rule is a question of law
How later courts described this case
- stating that whether a contract is integrated for purposes of applying the parol evidence rule is a question of law
- explaining Maine’s approach to the parol evidence rule
- explaining Pennsylvania’s approach to the parol evidence rule
- declining to reach conclusions on issues not raised on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALEXANDER, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 20] I respectfully dissent. As the Superior Court’s judgment determined, there is no reference to the “Davidson lot” so-called in any of the parties’ written agreements. Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly determined that Hemond’s effort to amend the written agreements by claiming an oral side agreement that Brown would acquire the Davidson lot is barred by the statute of frauds. I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.