Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The_Jazz. Your assessment is wrong.
"Verbal" contracts DO NOT fall subordinate to written contracts.
I didn't say this before, but for one thing, written contracts ARE verbal contracts.
For another, oral contracts do not fall subordinate to written contracts either.
I would expect, if you are going to make such a claim, that you provide me a list of authorities demonstrating your claim to be true. The fact that you keep mistating the situation with "verbal" contracts leads me to believ that you haven't read up on the relevant case law. If that's not true, show me the money...
|
smooth, you're right that I confused "verbal" and "written" contracts. Unfortunately (for me), I do that all the time. I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever been to law school, so I'm not an expert. All I am is a guy that reviews contract language on a daily basis.
That said, here are the relevent cases that I turned up in my quick search in my field guide:
Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 164 Vt. 13, 18, 665 A.2d 580 (1995)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388, 400 (Iowa 2001)
I haven't checked those cases, and they're all annotated under written vs. oral in my guide so if those are wrong, sorry. I really don't have the time right now for non-revenue generating research.
As I was typing this, it also occurred to me that almost all written contracts that replace oral ones expressly negate any previous oral agreements as a matter of course. That's certainly the case with the contractors that I deal with.