Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc. case
brief summary
971 F.2d 272 (1992)
CASE FACTS
Appellant general contractor challenged the denial of their motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case involving a contract dispute with appellees a subcontractor and a bonding company. Appellees cross-appealed on fraud and misrepresentation claims. The primary issue for the court was the admission of parol evidence over the objections of appellant.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and affirmed in part in favor of appellant general contractor and against appellees, a subcontractor and a bonding company, in a case stemming from a contract dispute, fraud, and misrepresentation claims. The court held that the district court erred in allowing the jury to hear parol evidence supporting appellees' proffered interpretation because it contradicted the plain language of the contract that precluded a fraud claim.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
971 F.2d 272 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant general contractor sought
review from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, which denied appellant's motions for
a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case
stemming from a contract dispute with appellees, a subcontractor and
a bonding company. Appellees cross-appealed the district court's
grant of summary judgment on fraud and misrepresentation
claims.CASE FACTS
Appellant general contractor challenged the denial of their motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case involving a contract dispute with appellees a subcontractor and a bonding company. Appellees cross-appealed on fraud and misrepresentation claims. The primary issue for the court was the admission of parol evidence over the objections of appellant.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that appellees' proffered interpretation stretched the contractual language beyond reasonable limits and violated most applicable rules of contract construction.
- Therefore, the district court erred in allowing the jury to hear parol evidence supporting appellees' proffered interpretation.
- Further, California held parties responsible for signing integrated contracts and allowed parol evidence of fraud only to the extent it did not contradict the integrated contract.
- Appellees' parol evidence contradicted the plain language of the contract.
- Thus, appellees' signing of the contract precluded a fraud claim based on the alleged promise to interpret the contact in a way that contradicted the plain language.
- The court reversed and remanded the fraud verdict and affirmed summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and affirmed in part in favor of appellant general contractor and against appellees, a subcontractor and a bonding company, in a case stemming from a contract dispute, fraud, and misrepresentation claims. The court held that the district court erred in allowing the jury to hear parol evidence supporting appellees' proffered interpretation because it contradicted the plain language of the contract that precluded a fraud claim.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment