1. Who were the parties involved in the case? (plaintiff/defendant/respondent/petitioner)

M.L. Dennison the plaintiff and Charles Harden the defendant

2. What were the facts in the case?

Dennison agreed to purchase land from Harden with the understanding that the land contained fruit trees. To prove that there were fruit trees on the property, Harden provided nursery reports stating that Pacific Gold peach trees were growing on the land. When Dennison discovered that the land contained these valueless shrubby trees and only a few of the fruit trees he had been expecting, he sued charging breach of contract.

At the trial, Dennison wanted to introduce the nursery reports as parol evidence to clarify the meaning of the fruit trees referred to in the contract. Harden resisted having the nursery report introduced to clarify the contract.

3. What was the Rule of Law in the case? (Rule of law the court applies to determine the rights of the parties)

Rule of law in this case is, the parol evidence rule.

The parol evidence rule prevents a party to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the original established contract. The parol evidence rule applies only when a contract is completely finalized or integrated.

The parol evidence rule can be simplified as the outside evidence rule. Outside evidence cannot be used where there is a written contract. Outside evidence can be other written agreements, written promises, oral agreements and discussions prior to finalizing the written contract.

Parol evidence should only be used to determine the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made, not after the fact. The only time that a contracts meaning cannot be ascertained is when the terms are ambiguous or when there is an interpretation issue.

4.Who won the case? Why?

Fill in the blank