Litigation
Oct. 25, 2013
No exception for sophistication in the post-Riverisland world
The fact that parties are highly sophisticated and contracts are integrated does not mean a jury will reject pre-contractual, contrary oral promises. By Seth Gerber
When we think of castles, we do not typically envision appellate opinions concerning the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. But that is exactly the cutting edge issue addressed by the California Court of Appeal in Julius Castle Restaurant Inc. v. Payne, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. June 10, 2013).
Julius Castle is a historic landmark restaurant property nestled on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. It opened ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In