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

Lee (P) had a 37-year record of service with Seagram (D) and had even been one of its officers. P acquired a half ownership in a wholesale liquor distributorship and agreed to sell the distributorship to D. D orally promised to set up P's sons in a new distributorship in a location acceptable to P. The written contract did not refer to the oral agreement. D performed the contract according to the written terms but refused to perform the contemporary oral contract. P sued D. At trial, the court ruled that the contract was not completely integrated and allowed parol evidence about the contract because it did not contradict or alter the written contract. D did not refute the oral agreement. P was awarded damages and D appealed. D claimed that parol evidence should not have been admitted to prove the existence of the oral agreement.

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.