Tricat Industries, Inc. v. Harper

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the exclusivity requirement was not met by the Agreement in question,” which, among other things, “did not expressly purport to be exclusive”
• explaining that “parol evidence is admissible when the written words are sufficiently ambiguous”
• because parties to prior case left validity of contract-issue for decision by another court, there was “no factual basis for the imposition of estoppel”
• evidence legally insufficient to show that board of directors ratified employment offered by officer to employee in absence of evidence of knowledge of material facts on part of board

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).