Lenzi v. Hahnemann University

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming trial court’s decision to allow testimony concerning the intent of the parties even though the contract at issue contained an integration clause
• stating that a court may construe two contracts together “to represent a complete transaction” only if “one contract does not provide for a complete representation of the intent of the parties,” and not where the contracts “stand[] on [their] own terms”
• “before the parol evidence rule is applied, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the writing at issue is an integrated agreement”
• “[t]he parol evidence rule does not preclude the admission of evidence to establish whether the parties intended the writing to be a complete embodiment of their agreement”
• a court must exclude parol evidence if the “written contract is unambiguous and held to express the embodiment of all negotiations and agreements prior to its execution”
• “The parol evidence rule seeks to preserve the integrity of a written agreement by barring the contracting parties from trying to alter the meaning of their agreement through use of contemporaneous oral declarations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).