Walt Bennett Ford V. Dyer Essay

343 WordsFeb 13, 20142 Pages
In this case, Dyer bought a vehicle from Walt Bennett Ford. Even though she received a contract for the transaction, the salesperson assured her that the tax on the vehicle was paid by the seller. The contract had a clear statement of being the final agreement and any other agreement will not be considered part of the clauses of the transaction and the buyer or seller cannot uses any other proof to justify any terms not covered in writing in the contract. Dyer sue Walt Bennett on the basis of breach of contract and Walt Bennett argued on the basis of absence of parole evidence rule. The parole evidence rule requires, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or something of the kind the exclusion of all prior or contemporaneous oral or written evidence that would add to or vary the parties’ integrated written contract.”(Mallor, 2013, Pp448-451). Therefore, paying the taxes by the seller would be considered as if it “supplement, change, or contradict the terms of the written contract”. The contract also contained a clause requiring any modifications of the contract to be in writing, and Dyer failed to include the salesperson’s promise in writing. The court ruled the case in favor of Walt Bennett Ford. http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19820414_0043514.AR.htm/qx Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2013). Business Law, The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment; Irwin McGraw-Hill, 15th ed., 2013 Walt Bennett prevailed. The parole evidence rule requires, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or something of the kind the exclusion of all prior or contemporaneous oral or written evidence that would add to or vary the parties’ integrated written contract.” Here, the purchase order stated that it was the entire agreement between the parties. This would exclude proof of promises made before the contract was signed.

More about Walt Bennett Ford V. Dyer Essay

Open Document