Andrews v. Skinner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ambiguity obvious because the release identifies the collision as having occurred on two separate dates
• “parol evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity in a written contract, although such evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary the writing itself”
• “[P]arol evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity in a written contract, although such evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary the writing itself. [Cits.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).