Union Bank v. Swenson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the factual issue of whether the contract was integrated precluded summary judgment
• explaining that bank representatives told defendants their personal “signatures were for appearances only and no collection action would be brought against them personally”
• stating that \parol evidence is admissible to show the circumstances under which the contract was made or the purpose for which the writing was executed.\
• stating that Rule 9(b) requires that substance of acts constituting fraud must be pleaded with particularity, but does not require averment to use specific terminology of fraud and its elements
• stating that Rule 9(b) requires that substance of acts constituting fraud must be pleaded with particularity, but does not require averment to use specific terminology of fraud and its elements
• “Parol evidence is admissible to prove that a party was induced into a contract by fraud.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).