This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Kemp (P) charter a ship from Castle (D) for salmon fishing. A letter of intent was signed that incorporated certain telexes exchanged in their negotiations. That letter served as an agreement pending preparation and execution of a final document. P paid a $50,000 nonrefundable deposit to D. A final agreement was sent, and P found that that agreement differed from the original in that the agreement contained no provisions regarding the working order of the engines and freezers. The final agreement disclaimed all warranties express or implied. P signed the agreement and voiced his concerns to D. Problems with both the engines and the freezing system developed and P sued D. The trial judge found the charter agreement ambiguous and admitted parol evidence to clarify the parties' intent. The verdict went to P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.