Dennison v. Harden
29 Wash. 2d 243, 186 P.2d 908, 1947 Wash. LEXIS 373 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The parol evidence rule, as a rule of substantive law, generally prohibits the introduction of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that contradict, vary, or add to the terms of a complete written contract, absent allegations of fraud or mutual mistake. Furthermore, there is no implied warranty of quality or fitness for use in the sale of real estate.
Facts:
- On May 12, 1943, the appellant and his wife (purchasers) entered into an executory real estate contract with the respondents (sellers).
- The contract involved the sale of land in King County, Washington, for twelve thousand dollars, with a one thousand dollar down payment and monthly installments.
- The written contract specified that the purchase price included "property and fruit trees, all tools, tractor, truck, fertilizer, etc., fruit trees, BERRY BUSHES, AND CROPS IN GROUND."
- During preliminary negotiations, the respondents had represented on multiple occasions that there were 276 Pacific Gold peach trees in the commercial orchard.
- Respondents also provided documents from the nursery company that supplied the trees, substantiating that they were Pacific Gold peach trees.
- The appellant later alleged that the trees were of a scrub or worthless variety, not Pacific Gold peach trees, and sought damages for breach of warranty.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant (purchaser) sued the respondents (sellers) in a trial court (court of first instance) for damages, alleging a breach of warranty regarding the type of fruit trees.
- The trial court initially received evidence presented by the appellant supporting their claim of an express warranty.
- The trial court later concluded that the parol evidence rule applied to this case.
- The trial court granted a motion to strike the evidence that had been admitted because it varied and added to the terms of the written contract.
- Following the striking of the evidence, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the respondents.
- The appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the parol evidence rule permit the introduction of prior oral statements alleging an express warranty regarding the specific type of fruit trees included in a written real estate contract that describes the trees generally, or does an implied warranty of variety exist in the sale of real estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
No, the parol evidence rule does not permit the introduction of prior oral statements alleging an express warranty regarding the type of fruit trees included in a written real estate contract that describes the trees generally, nor does an implied warranty of variety exist in the sale of real estate. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the parol evidence rule is a substantive law, meaning inadmissible testimony under the rule does not become admissible merely because it is not objected to. The court rejected the argument that "fruit trees" created an ambiguity requiring clarification by parol evidence, asserting the contract was clear and did not need additional terms. The court reiterated its established rule that evidence of collateral and contemporaneous oral agreements contradicting or altering the terms of a complete written contract is inadmissible without allegations of fraud or mutual mistake. Oral warranties relating to the subject matter of complete written contracts are not considered permissible collateral agreements. Finally, the court found no legal precedent, and the appellant cited none, recognizing an implied warranty in the sale of real estate, distinguishing it from the sale of personal property where such warranties may apply. Standing fruit trees were deemed part of the realty, not nursery stock.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict application of the parol evidence rule in Washington, particularly concerning real estate transactions. It clarifies that specific oral representations, even those seemingly collateral or inducing, made prior to or concurrently with a comprehensive written land sale contract, cannot be used to introduce terms or warranties not explicitly written, unless fraud or mutual mistake is properly alleged. Furthermore, the decision firmly establishes that implied warranties, common in personal property sales, do not extend to real estate, emphasizing the principle of 'caveat emptor' (buyer beware) for real property quality. This ruling underscores the critical importance for parties to real estate contracts to ensure all agreed-upon terms, particularly specific warranties regarding property features, are explicitly incorporated into the written agreement to be enforceable.
