- Home
- Bios
- Try Us Free
- Subscribe
- Case Library
- CA Evidence
Discovery
Civ-Pro - Torts
- SLAPPS
- Text Summaries
- Search
- Support
Case Summary |
|
p0507 REVIEW DENIED Ambiguity about whether the word "extensions" applied to a particular storage yard in a writing that created the right to repurchase a railroad with afteracquired "extensions" could be clarified by parol evidence, which could include reports filed by a party in fulfillment of a contract term calling for reports regarding "extensions."CitationALAMEDA BELT LINE v CITY OF ALAMEDA (Open-ended Option) 113 CA4 15 [See: CivC 1624; Beverage v Canton 43 C2 769; Love v US 889 FS 1548] |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||