Fahey v. Adams
Fahey v. Adams
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The plaintiffs brought this action in assumpsit for an alleged breach of contract in the sale of grain. They are grain brokers in the City of Baltimore, and the defendant a dealer in grain, doing business in the City of Lancaster. The claim is based upon the nondelivery of three carloads of wheat. There was little, if any, dispute concerning the facts out of which the controversy arises, the principal contention relating to the modification of the written contracts as to extension of time for delivery, and these were apparently well understood by the parties, as evidenced by their conduct and mutual dealings. The alleged variance between the contracts and parol representations are but explanatory of the existing contracts, and such evidence is received under clearly defined rules: Ketcham v. Central Trust and Savings Company, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 376.
The contracts involved in this action were not denied, and the parol offers could not be objected to on the ground that it was a case of variance between the allegata and the probata, as the conduct of the parties so intimately linked them together as to make them, necessary parts of the transaction.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contracts — Written contracts — Extension of time- — Parol evidence — Allegata and probata. In an action of assumpsit on a written contract for the sale of grain, modification of terms as to time of performance, which the conduct and mutual dealings of the parties show to have been clearly understood, may he shown by parol evidence, and do not constitute, a variance between allegata and probata, where the modification is so closely linked with the written contract as to constitute part of the same transaction.