Item Co. v. Wormington Machinery Power & Equipment Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Item Co. v. Wormington Machinery Power & Equipment Co.

4 La. App. 519, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 189

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 21, 1926

DocketNo. 10,502

StatusPublished

This text of 4 La. App. 519 (Item Co. v. Wormington Machinery Power & Equipment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Item Co. v. Wormington Machinery Power & Equipment Co., 4 La. App. 519, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 189 (La. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff sues on a written advertising contract, alleging, performance, and claiming the consideration mentioned or $182.00.

Defendant admits the contract, and, finds no fault With the execution of it by plaintiff, but says that by a subsequent verbal agreement certain “write ups” were to* be given defendant’s business' in- addition to the advertising'.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

There is absolutely no- evidence of á subsequent oral agreement relative to “write ups”. The testimony on this' point- properly admitted over plaintiff’s- objection on the ground that a subsequent oral agreement changing or modifying a written agreement may be proven notwithstanding its effect upon the written contract, all tended to establish a previous or contemporaneous understanding, which, of course, under the parol evidence rule is inadmissible, if its effect be to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument. The contract sued on, admittedly, contains no reference to “write ups”, whatever that may mean, and, moreover, contains the words “No condition not written in this contract will be recognized”. Under the circumstances, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff sues on a written advertising contract, alleging, performance, and claiming the consideration mentioned or $182.00.

Defendant admits the contract, and, finds no fault With the execution of it by plaintiff, but says that by a subsequent verbal agreement certain “write ups” were to* be given defendant’s business' in- addition to the advertising'.

There was judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

There is absolutely no- evidence of á subsequent oral agreement relative to “write ups”. The testimony on this' point- properly admitted over plaintiff’s- objection on the ground that a subsequent oral agreement changing or modifying a written agreement may be proven notwithstanding its effect upon the written contract, all tended to establish a previous or contemporaneous understanding, which, of course, under the parol evidence rule is inadmissible, if its effect be to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument. The contract sued on, admittedly, contains no reference to “write ups”, whatever that may mean, and, moreover, contains the words “No condition not written in this contract will be recognized”. Under the circumstances, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 La. App. 519, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/item-co-v-wormington-machinery-power-equipment-co-lactapp-1926.