Liberty Combustion Company v. Thoreson Sales Company
This text of 322 F.2d 790 (Liberty Combustion Company v. Thoreson Sales Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The issue in this diversity case, tried before the District Judge sitting without a jury, turns on the true meaning of an admittedly parol agreement wherein the seller (Liberty, appellant) agreed that it would allow the buyer (Thoreson, appellee) to “reship” any merchandise which the buyer could not dispose of. The court below rejected seller-appellant’s contention that “reshipping” would be available only if the seller were able to place the goods in other markets. The findings of the court below are not clearly erroneous. Appellant may not rely upon the parol evidence rule. By first placing oral testimony concerning the issue before the court, appellant waived any right it had to rely on that rule, assuming it were applicable in the circumstances.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
322 F.2d 790, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-combustion-company-v-thoreson-sales-company-ca5-1963.