Oregon Supreme Court· 12/19/1978

Hatley v. Stafford

Citations

588 P.2d 603
284 Or. 523
1978 Ore. LEXIS 1259

How courts have described this case

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

stating that, to be “inconsistent” within the meaning of the parol evidence rule, the oral term must contradict an express provision in the writing
explaining that the parol evidence rule does not apply when the writing is not complete and contains only part of the agreement
implying common law exceptions to the statutory parol evidence rule where the statute was “a cod-ifieation of the common law parol evidence rule”
tracing the roots of the parol evidence rule, now adopted by statute, back to the law governing contracts Cite as 306 Or App 634 (2020) 643 made under the “King’s seal,” which made the document uncontestable
under parol evidence rule, the court decides whether parties intended writing to be a complete integration but does not decide whether alleged oral terms actually were agreed upon
an integrated writing may be either completely integrated or partially integrated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Howell, Lent

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.