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

Brinderson (P) was awarded a contract by the Navy to build a power plant at Puget Sound. P then negotiated with Pacific (D) to erect a large steel Flue Gas System. A final contract was drafted and reviewed line by line. A dispute arose over pick and set requirements, but P assured D that the language only required picks and sets for the Flue Gas System. The parties performed under the contract and a dispute arose. P claimed that D was required to erect the components under the contract. D claimed that it was only required to pick and set the components while P erected them. Under D's understanding, D only had to complete the work to the extent that it had customarily completed similar work as a subcontractor. D was required to 'erect complete' only a portion of the FGS, not the entire system. D introduced parol evidence at trial alleging that, before the contract was signed, P orally assured D that the phrases 'erect complete' and 'make a complete installation' only meant that D had to complete the structural and miscellaneous steel work for the FGS. P denies making such representations and contends it was clear that D was required to erect and install the entire FGS. P argues that the district court erred by allowing the jury to hear and consider this parol evidence. The trial court denied P's motion for a directed verdict based on parol evidence. P 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.