C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall Partners

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the parol evidence rule does “not bar introduction of evidence to explain terms”
• holding that whether there is an ambiguity in a contract is a question of law for the court
• holding that contract ambiguities can be interpreted in light of relevant trade usage and practices
• holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible, a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law
• providing that the parol evidence rule “bars admission of evidence extrinsic to the contract to contradict and perhaps even supplement the writing”
• explaining that “reliance is not an element of a claim for breach of an express warranty reduced to writing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).