Nicolella v. Palmer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for an integrated contract, the parol evidence rule prevents extrinsic evidence to establish an additional contract term
• stating that extrinsic evidence to vary terms of an integrated agreement is barred “in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake”
• concluding “HCB’s claims relate to subjects that were specifically addressed in the written contract,” and later noting “... in fact, [the plain language of the contract] negates HCB’s assertions ... ”
• stating, “the parol evidence rule bars only prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, not subsequent ones.”
• \[A] promise to pay additional compensation for the performance by the promisee of a contract which the promisee is already under obligation to the promisor to perform is without consideration.\
• subsequent oral modification must be established by clear and convincing evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).