Perspective
Jun. 19, 2013
Parol evidence in a post-Riverisland world
In a case decided June 13, the 1st District Court of Appeal provided some guidance on how the appellate courts will treat the parol evidence rule in the post-Riverisland world. By David Krause-Leemon
For decades, lawyers defending clients against fraud in the inducement claims relied on the parol evidence rule to exclude evidence that directly contradicted the terms of written agreements between the parties. Then, on Jan. 14, the state Supreme Court issued its decision in Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Credit Ass'n, 55 Cal. 4th 1169 (2013). As most litigators should know by now, that case has been hailed as a...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In