Winet v. Price

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that when contract is ambiguous, court may properly admit parol evidence to construe the written agreement
• disregarding “testimony as to what [the witness] subjectively understood and intended the release to encompass”
• “It is the outward expression of the agreement, rather than a party’s unexpressed intention, which the court will enforce.”
• “parol evidence is admissible only to prove a meaning to which the language is ‘reasonably susceptible,’ not to flatly contradict the express terms of the agreement.”
• “It is the outward expression 11 of the agreement, rather than a party’s unexpressed intention, which the court will 12 enforce.”
• “It is the outward expression of the agreement, rather than a party’s unexpressed intention, which the court will enforce.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).