When is a term "inconsistent" with the written agreement? Hunt Food v. Doliner: "In a sense any oral provision which would prevent the ripening of the obligations of a writing is inconsistent with the writing. But that obviously is not the sense in which the word is used . . . To be inconsistent the term must contradict or negate a term of the writing. A term or condition which has a lesser effect is provable."
Under what circumstances will a court decide that it is "natural" for a term not to be embodied in the writing?
Under what circumstances will a court decide that a written agreement is fully integrated rather than a partial integration?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment