Sec. 744. Extrinsic Evidence Admissible If Explanatory
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 744. Extrinsic Evidence Admissible If Explanatory
The statute of frauds does not forbid the introduction of oral evidence. It merely requires a written note or memorandum of the contract. In certain cases where extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain an ordinary written contract, it may be introduced to explain a contract under the statute of frauds.1 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, so as to put the court in the position of the parties thereto.2
Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of abbreviations used in the memorandum.3 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning given by custom or usage to such expressions as "O. K.,"4 "F. C. wool,"5 "bought thirteen at eleven five-eighths net you."6
8 Smith v. Shell, 82 Mo. 215; 52 Am. Rep. 365.
1 Brewer v. Horst and Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643; 50 L. R. A. 240; 60 Pae. 418; Lee v. Butler, 167 Mass. 426; 57 Am. St. Rep. 466; 46 N. E. 52.
2Wylson v. Dunn, 34 Ch. Div. 569; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; Brewer v. Horst and Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643; 50 L. R. A. 240; 60 Pac. 418; Berry v. Kowalsky, 95 Cal. 134; 29 Am. St. Rep. 101; 30 Pac. 202; Mann v. Higgins, 83 Cal. 66; 23 Pac. 206; Callahan v. Stanley, 57 Cal. 476; Towle v. Car-melo, etc., Co., 99 Cal. 397; 33 Pac. 1126; Prehle v. Abrahams, 88 Cal. 245; 26 Pac. 99; New England, etc., Co. v Worsted Co., 165 Mass. 328; 52 Am. St. Rep. 516; 43 N. E. 112; Ellis v. Bray. 79 Mo. 227; Regan v. Milby, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 21; 50 S. W. 587. "Parol evidence may be introduced to show the situation of the parties and the circumstances attendant upon the transaction for the purpose of applying the contract to the subject-matter and to show the connection of different writings constituting the memorandum with one another." Lee v. Butler, 167 Mass. 426, 428; 57 Am. St. Rep. 466; 46 N. E. 52.
3 Brewer v. Horst and Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643; 50 L. R. A. 240; 60 Pac. 418; New England, etc., Co. v. Worsted Co., 165 Mass. 328; 52 Am. St. Rep. 516; 43 N. E. 112; Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257; 65 Am. St. Rep. 568; 72 N. W. 72.
4 Moore v. Eisaman, 201 Pa. St. 190; 50 Atl. 982.
5 New England, etc., Co. v. Worsted Co., 165 Mass. 328; 52 Am. St. Rep. 516; 43 N. E. 112.
6 Brewer v. Horst and Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643; 50 L. R. A. 240 ; 60 Pac. 418.
Continue to:
My Books
