Duke v. KHD Deutz of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• use of contemporaneous writings permitted to resolve ambiguity where statute of frauds not implicated because guaranty contained all essential terms
• where guaranty contained all essential terms, contemporaneous writings could be considered to resolve latent ambiguity
• use of contemporaneous writings permitted to resolve ambiguity where statute of frauds not implicated because guaranty contained all essential terms
• “[Cjontemporaneous written agreements are perhaps one of the surest ways to establish the intent of the parties in entering into each of those agreements.”
• \contemporaneous writings should be considered even if one of the writings purports to `contain the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby' and even if the writings are not cross-referenced\
• “contemporaneous writings should be considered even if one of the writings purports to ‘contain the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby’ and even if the writings are not cross-referenced”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).