804 A.2d 379 (Me. 2002)
After the borrower did not make any payments to the lenders pursuant to a written promissory note. The borrower contended that, pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties, he would pay only if and when he was able.
- The state supreme court held that the borrower's statement of material facts was not procedurally defective under Me. R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2).
- It complied with the parol evidence rule, as the agreement was only partially integrated.
- The agreement imposed no contractual duties on the lenders.
- The existence of the oral condition was, thus, a question of fact. Finally, Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code applied, as it was a negotiable instrument that was conditionally delivered and was supplemented by a separate agreement, pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. title 11, §§ 3-1104(1), 3-1105(2), 3-1117 (1995).
- Therefore, summary judgment was inapplicable.
The judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.