# BROWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Hemond

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · September 23, 2008 · 956 A.2d 104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752603

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Maureen HEMOND
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** September 23, 2008
- **Citations:** 956 A.2d 104; 2008 ME 146; 2008 Me. LEXIS 149; 2008 WL 4308143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Alexander
- **Judges:** Alexander, Silver, Mead, Gorman
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752603

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752603. Public record. Not legal advice.