Pankratz v. Hoff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an integrated contract is a “complete and final expression” of the parties’ agreements and that the agreement does not include “prior or contemporaneous negotiations or conversations inconsistent with the writing”
• noting that absent fraud or mistake, “parol testimony of prior or contemporaneous negotiations ... which tend to substitute a new and different contract from the one evidenced by the writing, is incompetent” (quoting Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 79 S.E.2d 239, 242 (1953))
• noting that absent fraud or mistake, “parol testimony of prior or contemporaneous negotiations . . . which tend to substitute a new and different contract from the one evidenced by the writing, is incompetent” (quoting Neal v. Marrone, 79 S.E.2d 239, 242 (N.C. 1953))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).