Tar River Cable TV, Inc. v. Standard Theatre Supply Co., 827SC334
| Decision Date | 03 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 827SC334,827SC334 |
| Parties | TAR RIVER CABLE TV, INC. v. STANDARD THEATRE SUPPLY COMPANY. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Spruill, Lane, McCotter & Jolly by William S. Cherry, Jr., and Charles T. Lane, Rocky Mount, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stern, Rendleman & Klepfer by John A. Swem, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.
The sole issue presented is whether Tar River's evidence, which it contends presents a genuine issue of fact as to the nature of the contract, was admissible or barred by the parol evidence rule. The parol evidence rule excludes prior or contemporaneous oral agreements which are inconsistent with a written contract if the written contract contains the complete agreement of the parties. This rule was explained by our Supreme Court as follows:
A contract not required to be in writing may be partly written and partly oral. However, where the parties have deliberately put their engagements in writing in such terms as import a legal obligation free of uncertainty, it is presumed the writing was intended by the parties to represent all their engagements as to the elements dealt with in the writing. Accordingly, all prior and contemporaneous negotiations in respect to those elements are deemed merged in the written agreement. And the rule is that, in the absence of fraud or mistake or allegation thereof, parol testimony of prior or contemporaneous negotiations or conversations inconsistent with the writing, or which tend to substitute a new and different contract from the one evidenced by the writing, is incompetent.
Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 77, 79 S.E.2d 239, 242 (1953).
In this case, Tar River agreed to purchase certain items of equipment from Standard. By Tar River's own admission, the equipment was delivered, installed, and functioning properly. Subsequently, they realized that the system they purchased was not sophisticated enough to do what they wanted. They purchased a frame synchronizer, for $21,000.00, installed it, redesigned the system, and then brought this action against Standard for $81,075.00 damages, of which $21,000.00 was for the frame synchronizer. Chester admitted, in his deposition, that if Standard had included the frame synchronizer in the contract he would not have entered into the agreement because it would have been too expensive. The parol evidence rule was designed to apply in this sort of situation. The contract contained the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franco v. Liposcience, Inc.
...recognizes and gives effect to merger clauses of the type present in the Severance Agreement. Tar River Cable TV, Inc. v. Standard Theatre Supply Co., 62 N.C.App. 61, 302 S.E.2d 458 (1983). There are, however, exceptions to the general prohibition against allowing the use of parol testimony......
-
Media Network, Inc. v. Mullen Advertising, Inc.
...a written contract if the written contract contains the complete agreement of the parties." Tar River Cable TV, Inc. v. Standard Theatre Supply Co., 62 N.C.App. 61, 64-65, 302 S.E.2d 458, 460 (1983). The parol evidence rule, however, does not bar the admission of such evidence "to prove tha......
-
Smith v. Central Soya of Athens, Inc.
...of merger clauses and the state courts have repeatedly enforced such clauses. See, e.g., Tar River Cable TV, Inc. v. Standard Theatre Supply Co., 62 N.C.App. 61, 65, 302 S.E.2d 458, 460 (1983); Elizabeth City Hotel Corp. v. Overman, 201 N.C. 337, 341, 160 S.E. 289, 291 (1931); J.B. Colt Co.......
-
Zinn v. Walker, 8715SC91
...clauses and has consistently upheld them. Hotel Corporation v. Overman, 201 N.C. 337, 160 S.E. 289 (1931); Cable TV, Inc. v. Theatre Supply Co., 62 N.C.App. 61, 302 S.E.2d 458 (1983); Smith v. Central Soya of Athens, Inc., 604 F.Supp. 518 (E.D.N.C.1985). Merger clauses create a rebuttable p......