(DOWNLOAD) "Higby v. Hooper" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Higby v. Hooper
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 28, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
1. Contracts. All parties here were entitled to stand on written contract as set forth in contractors letter to veteran, certifying that complete cost would not exceed specified sum, and such contract superseded all oral agreements and stipulations of parties. 2. Evidence ? Parol evidence rule. A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise. 3. Evidence ? Merging of oral and written contracts. A contractual duty or a duty to make compensation is merged in the duty created by the formation of an informal written contract between the same parties providing for the same performance, if the written contract becomes by virtue of the parol evidence rule the only source for determining the parties rights and duties. 4. Evidence ? Effect where written contract is shown. A written contract may be shown to have been intended to serve - Page 332 purpose of mere jest, joke or sham only when pretense is morally justifiable, and when it is morally beyond sanction or aims at evasion of law or deception of other persons by parties intention, such intention will not be given effect. 5. Evidence ? Effect when fraud is shown. Parties to contract will not be permitted to show that it was entered into as a sham to deceive and defraud or made solely for fraudulent and deceitful use. 6. Estoppel ? Effect of estoppel. One making positive statements of fact to another, who acts in reliance thereon, is estopped from denying their truth in any controversy between such parties. An estoppel, like a conclusive presumption, is a rule of substantive law masquerading as a rule of evidence. 7. Contracts ? Contract binding when signed by only one party. To render a building contractors letter, certifying that complete cost of building house for addressee would not exceed stated sum, a binding contract, addressees signature thereto was unnecessary under facts and circumstances shown. 8. Contracts ? Occupancy does not denote acceptance. Mere occupancy and use of unfinished dwelling house by persons contracting for construction thereof on their lots by another did not constitute acceptance of contractors work as complying with contract or amount to waiver of defects therein. 9. Contracts ? Effect of setting maximum sum. Where building contract states no specific price, but sets definite sum as maximum construction cost, contractor cannot recover amount exceeding such maximum from other party to contract. 10. Evidence. The trial court cannot disregard uncontroverted credible evidence.
 "Higby v. Hooper" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}