Coleman v. ARRINGTON AUTO SALES & RENTALS

How courts have described this case

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

• testimony intended to contradict or vary the clear and unambiguous terms of the promissory note and installment contracts was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
• testimony intended to contradict or vary the clear and unambiguous terms of the promissory note and installment contracts was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
• no contractual ambiguity exists “where, examining the contract as a whole and affording the words used therein their plain and ordinary meaning, the contract is capable of only one reasonable interpretation”
• no contractual ambiguity exists “where, examining the contract as a whole and affording the words used therein their plain and ordinary meaning, the contract is capable of only one reasonable interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).