Doswell Ltd. Partnership v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “an agreement is not rendered ambiguous merely because it deals with a technical subject that may be considered complex to the uninformed lay person who is not familiar with the topic”
• holding parol evidence may not be considered when the contractual language is unambiguous
• “The question whether an agreement is ambiguous is not one of fact but one of law .... ”
• “[P]arol evidence may not be used to first create an ambiguity and then to remove it.”
• “Even though an agreement may have been drawn unartfully, the court must construe the language as written if its parts can be read together without conflict.”
• “[E]ven assuming the [trial evidence] qualifies as prohibited extrinsic evidence, the record shows that the trial court based its judgment primarily on the agreement . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).