Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

• Plaintiff was getting paid so defendant could dump construction waste on his land.
• Plaintiff alleges that under original oral argument consturction waste would be buried under topsoil. Originally defendant was doing this, but eventually stopped, presumably to save money.
• Defendant was also removing and replacing topsoil with neighboring landowners.
• Evidence suggests that agreement to replace topsoil was omitted by mutual mistake (or worse, by defendant’s fraud), in either case not favorable to defendant.
• Court rules for plaintiff, saying evidence could supplement written agreement.

• UCC allows for no-oral modification clauses. 2-209(2): A signed agreement which excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing cannot be otherwise modified or rescinded…
• No-oral modification clause helps reduce uncertainty, particularly with agents of business who might be saying different things out in the field.
• Ambiguous and vague terms–different issue, but similar question as to how much extrinsic evidence is admissible in interpretting terms of a contract.

Author: international