parol evidence rule in Connecticut

115 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1930–2025 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (22)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Jurgensengreen conn · 1996 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2007 2 sentences 2007Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712, 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996). 1997"The parol evidence rule prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Company, 42 Conn. App. 712 , 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996).	2	4
Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shopgreen conn · 1996 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2007 2 sentences 2007Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712, 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996). 1997"The parol evidence rule prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Company, 42 Conn. App. 712 , 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996).	2	4
Foley v. Huntington Co.green connappct · 1996 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2007 2 sentences 1997"The parol evidence rule prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Company, 42 Conn. App. 712 , 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996). 1997"The parol evidence rule prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Company, 42 Conn. App. 712 , 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996).	2	4
Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.green conn · 2003 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2013 2 sentences 2013See Schilberg Integrated Materials Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 277 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003). 2013See Schilberg Integrated Materials Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 277 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003).	2	3
TIE Communications, Inc. v. Koppgreen conn · 1991 · cited in 15 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–2022 2 sentences 2000The parol evidence rule "prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp , 218 Conn. 281 , 287-88 (1991). 1993The parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of contract law that “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract.” TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp, 218 Conn. 281, 287-88 , 589 A.2d 329 (1991); see also General Statutes § 42a-2-202 (Uniform Commercial Code).	1	15
Security Equities v. Giambagreen conn · 1989 · cited in 8 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–2002 2 sentences 2002Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law; Security Equities v. Giamba, 210 Conn. 71, 78 , 553 A.2d 1135 (1989); Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113 , 441 A.2d 61 (1981); the defendants’ claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review. 2002Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law; Security Equities v. Giamba, 210 Conn. 71, 78 , 553 A.2d 1135 (1989); Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113 , 441 A.2d 61 (1981); the defendants’ claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.	1	8
Jay Realty, Inc. v. Ahearn Development Corporationgreen conn · 1983 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1999 2 sentences 1999Parol evidence offered solely to vary or contradict the written terms of an integrated contract is, therefore, legally irrelevant. [S]uch evidence may still be relevant `(1) to explain an ambiguity appearing in the instrument; [or] (2) to prove a collateral oral agreement which does not vary the terms of a writing. . . .'" (Emphasis in original.) TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp , 218 Conn. 281 , 288-89 , 589 A.2d 329 (1991), quoting Jay Realty, Inc. v. Ahearn Development Corp. , 189 Conn. 52 , 55-56 , 453 A.2d 771 (1983). 1999Parol evidence offered solely to vary or contradict the written terms of an integrated contract is, therefore, legally irrelevant. [S]uch evidence may still be relevant `(1) to explain an ambiguity appearing in the instrument; [or] (2) to prove a collateral oral agreement which does not vary the terms of a writing. . . .'" (Emphasis in original.) TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp , 218 Conn. 281 , 288-89 , 589 A.2d 329 (1991), quoting Jay Realty, Inc. v. Ahearn Development Corp. , 189 Conn. 52 , 55-56 , 453 A.2d 771 (1983).	1	5
Jarvis v. Cunliffegreen conn · 1953 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1954–1981 2 sentences 1981Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 210 , 112 A.2d 885 [1955]; Jarvis v. Cunliffe, 140 Conn. 297, 299 , 99 A.2d 126 [1953]; 3 Corbin, Contracts § 573. . . . 1981Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 210 , 112 A.2d 885 [1955]; Jarvis v. Cunliffe, 140 Conn. 297, 299 , 99 A.2d 126 [1953]; 3 Corbin, Contracts § 573. . . .	1	4
Marine Midland Bank-Southern v. Thurlowgreen ny · 1981 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1992–2017 2 sentences 2017"Briefly, absent fraud or mutual mistake, where the parties have reduced their agreement to an integrated writing, the parol evidence rule operates to exclude evidence of all prior or contemporaneous negotiations between the parties offered to contradict or modify the terms of their writing." Marine Midland Bank-Southern v. Thurlow , 53 N.Y.2d 381 , 387, 442 N.Y.S.2d 417 , 425 N.E.2d 805 (1981). 2017"Briefly, absent fraud or mutual mistake, where the parties have reduced their agreement to an integrated writing, the parol evidence rule operates to exclude evidence of all prior or contemporaneous negotiations between the parties offered to contradict or modify the terms of their writing." Marine Midland Bank-Southern v. Thurlow , 53 N.Y.2d 381 , 387, 442 N.Y.S.2d 417 , 425 N.E.2d 805 (1981).	1	3
Greene v. Scottgreen connappct · 1984 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–2015 2 sentences 2015As noted by the defendant, the parol evidence rule requires that ‘‘[w]hen two par- ties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the com- plete and accurate integration of that contract, evi- dence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Greene v. Scott, 3 Conn. App. 34, 36 , 484 A.2d 474 (1984). 2015As noted by the defendant, the parol evidence rule requires that ‘‘[w]hen two par- ties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the com- plete and accurate integration of that contract, evi- dence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Greene v. Scott, 3 Conn. App. 34, 36 , 484 A.2d 474 (1984).	1	3
Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzongreen connappct · 2021 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022We begin with the applicable standard of review. ‘‘Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence . . . but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [defendant’s] claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon, 207 Conn. App. 707, 728 , 264 A.3d 130 , cert. denied, 340 Conn. 911 , 264 A.3d 94 (2021). 2022Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [seller’s] claim involves a ques- tion of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn. App. 462, 466 , 823 A.2d 438 (2003); see also Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Afer- zon, 207 Conn. App. 707, 728 , 264 A.3d 130 , cert. denied, 340 Conn. 911 , 264 A.3d 94 (2021). ‘‘The parol evidence rule is premised upon the idea that when the parties have deliberately put their engage- ments in	1	2
Conn Acoustics, Inc. v. Xhema Construction, Inc.green connappct · 2005 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2012	1	2
McLaughlin v. Thomasgreen conn · 1912 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1946–1970	1	2
Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberggreen connappct · 2007 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	1	1
Langston v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen conn · 2007 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	1	1
Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberggreen conn · 2007 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	1	1
Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Devinegreen · 1922 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016	1	1
Adler & Shaykin v. Wachnergreen nysd · 1988 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Tempo Shain Corporation Neptune Plus Corporation v. Bertek, Inc.green ca2 · 1997 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
Warman v. Delaneygreen conn · 1961 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
Crowley v. Pendletongreen conn · 1878 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
Telecom International America, Ltd. v. At & T Corp.green ca2 · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (58)

Case	Cited	Years
Cohn v. Dunn green conn · 1930 2 sentences 1930In Cohn v. Dunn, 111 Conn. 342 , 149 Atl. 851 , we recently discussed the parol evidence rule, and no good purpose would be served by repeating what we said. 1930In Cohn v. Dunn, 111 Conn. 342 , 149 Atl. 851 , we recently discussed the parol evidence rule, and no good purpose would be served by repeating what we said.	13	1930–2000
Damora v. Christ-Janer green conn · 1981 2 sentences 2002Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law; Security Equities v. Giamba, 210 Conn. 71, 78 , 553 A.2d 1135 (1989); Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113 , 441 A.2d 61 (1981); the defendants’ claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review. 2002Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law; Security Equities v. Giamba, 210 Conn. 71, 78 , 553 A.2d 1135 (1989); Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113 , 441 A.2d 61 (1981); the defendants’ claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.	9	1989–2002
Alstom Power, Inc. v. Balcke-Durr, Inc. green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2015Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [plaintiff’s] claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alstom Power, Inc. v. Balcke-Durr, Inc., 269 Conn. 599, 609 , 849 A.2d 804 (2004). ‘‘A promissory note is a written contract for the pay- ment of money, and, as such, contract law applies.’’ Antonino v. Johnson, 113 Conn. App. 72, 75 , 966 A.2d 261 (2009). ‘‘The standard of review for the issue of contract interpretation is well established. 2015Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [plaintiff’s] claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alstom Power, Inc. v. Balcke-Durr, Inc., 269 Conn. 599, 609 , 849 A.2d 804 (2004). ‘‘A promissory note is a written contract for the pay- ment of money, and, as such, contract law applies.’’ Antonino v. Johnson, 113 Conn. App. 72, 75 , 966 A.2d 261 (2009). ‘‘The standard of review for the issue of contract interpretation is well established.	8	2005–2016
Associated Catalog Merchandisers, Inc. v. Chagnon green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2021If the evidence, however, does not indicate that the writing is intended as an integration, i.e., a final expres- sion of one or more terms of an agreement . . . then the agreement is said to be unintegrated, and the parol evidence rule does not apply.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Associated Catalog Mer- chandisers, Inc. v. Chagnon, 210 Conn. 734 , 739–40, 557 A.2d 525 (1989). 2021If the evidence, however, does not indicate that the writing is intended as an integration, i.e., a final expres- sion of one or more terms of an agreement . . . then the agreement is said to be unintegrated, and the parol evidence rule does not apply.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Associated Catalog Mer- chandisers, Inc. v. Chagnon, 210 Conn. 734 , 739–40, 557 A.2d 525 (1989).	6	1992–2021
Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania green conn · 1995 2 sentences 1999"Although the parol evidence rule `prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement'; Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co. , 177 Conn. 149 , 160 , 411 A.2d 1371 (1979); that rule `does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language.' Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 781 n. 22, 653 A.2d 122 (1995). . . ." (Citation omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596-97 , 662 A.2d 1242 (1995). 1999"Although the parol evidence rule `prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement'; Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co. , 177 Conn. 149 , 160 , 411 A.2d 1371 (1979); that rule `does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language.' Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 781 n. 22, 653 A.2d 122 (1995). . . ." (Citation omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596-97 , 662 A.2d 1242 (1995).	5	1995–2013
Harris v. Clinton green conn · 1955 2 sentences 2013When deciding whether the parol evidence rule operates to prevent the trier of fact from considering certain evidence to interpret the contract, “[t]he fundamental question is . . . the intent of the parties.” Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 210 , 112 A.2d 885 (1955). 2013When deciding whether the parol evidence rule operates to prevent the trier of fact from considering certain evidence to interpret the contract, “[t]he fundamental question is . . . the intent of the parties.” Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 210 , 112 A.2d 885 (1955).	5	1963–2013
Giorgio v. Nukem, Inc. green connappct · 1993 2 sentences 2000Giorgio v. Nukem, Inc., 31 Conn. App. 169, 173-74 , 624 A.2d 896 (1993); see also 2 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 213 (1981).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712, 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996). 2000Giorgio v. Nukem, Inc., 31 Conn. App. 169, 173-74 , 624 A.2d 896 (1993); see also 2 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 213 (1981).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712, 733 , 682 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931 , 683 A.2d 397 (1996).	5	1996–2000
Sims v. Honda Motor Co. green conn · 1993 2 sentences 2019"The parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of contract law that prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sims v. Honda Motor Co. , 225 Conn. 401 , 416, 623 A.2d 995 (1993). "[O]ne purpose of the parol evidence rule is to secure business stability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 416-17 , 623 A.2d 995 . 2019"The parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of contract law that prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sims v. Honda Motor Co. , 225 Conn. 401 , 416, 623 A.2d 995 (1993). "[O]ne purpose of the parol evidence rule is to secure business stability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 416-17 , 623 A.2d 995 .	4	2000–2019
Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co. green conn · 1979 2 sentences 1999"Although the parol evidence rule `prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement'; Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co. , 177 Conn. 149 , 160 , 411 A.2d 1371 (1979); that rule `does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language.' Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 781 n. 22, 653 A.2d 122 (1995). . . ." (Citation omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596-97 , 662 A.2d 1242 (1995). 1999"Although the parol evidence rule `prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement'; Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co. , 177 Conn. 149 , 160 , 411 A.2d 1371 (1979); that rule `does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language.' Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 781 n. 22, 653 A.2d 122 (1995). . . ." (Citation omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596-97 , 662 A.2d 1242 (1995).	4	1984–2006
Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc. green connappct · 1992 2 sentences 2001“The parol evidence rule does not apply, however, if the written contract is not completely integrated.” Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc., 27 Conn. App. 59, 65 , 605 A.2d 550 (1992). 2001“The parol evidence rule does not apply, however, if the written contract is not completely integrated.” Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc., 27 Conn. App. 59, 65 , 605 A.2d 550 (1992).	4	1993–2001
Maier v. Arsenault green conn · 1953 2 sentences 1992In Maier v. Arsenault, 140 Conn. 364 , 367-368 , (citation omitted), the court outlined the parol evidence rule: It is, of course, fundamental, as a matter of substantive law, that the terms of a written contract which is intended by the parties to set forth their entire agreement may not be varied by parol evidence. (citations omitted) It is equally fundamental, however, that when the words used in a written contract are uncertain or ambiguous, parol evidence of conversations between the parties or other circumstances antedating the contract may be used as an aid in the interpretation of the 1979It contends that there was nothing in paragraph 14 to indicate that there were or would be any documents outside of the agreement itself and that paragraph 14 contains no reference to payment of interest or attorney’s fees in ease of default. *160 In Maier v. Arsenault, 140 Conn. 364, 367-68 , 100 A.2d 403 (1953), this court outlined the parol evidence rule: “It is, of course, fundamental, as a matter of substantive law, that the terms of a written contract which is intended by the parties to set forth their entire agreement may not be varied by parol evidence.	4	1979–1992
Panaroni v. Johnson green conn · 1969 2 sentences 1978The parol evidence rule as a rule of substantive law; Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92 , 106 ; does not permit written contracts to be varied by parol. 1978The parol evidence rule as a rule of substantive law; Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 106 ; does not permit written contracts to be varied by parol.	4	1974–1981
Nagel v. Modern Investment Corporation green conn · 1946 2 sentences 1976“The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law rather than a rule of evidence, and the essence of an objection under it is that even if the evidence objected to is admitted, it would be ineffective, and thus immaterial, because it could not legally affect the rights of the parties as defined in the writing.” Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. Suto, supra, 255 , citing Nagel v. Modern Investment Corporation, 132 Conn. 698, 700 , 46 A.2d 605 . 1976“The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law rather than a rule of evidence, and the essence of an objection under it is that even if the evidence objected to is admitted, it would be ineffective, and thus immaterial, because it could not legally affect the rights of the parties as defined in the writing.” Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. Suto, supra, 255 , citing Nagel v. Modern Investment Corporation, 132 Conn. 698, 700 , 46 A.2d 605 .	4	1952–1979
Hare v. McClellan green conn · 1995 2 sentences 2018Regardless, "[a]lthough the parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement ... that rule does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596, 662 A.2d 1242 (1995). 2018Regardless, "[a]lthough the parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement ... that rule does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hare v. McClellan , 234 Conn. 581 , 596, 662 A.2d 1242 (1995).	3	1997–2018
Benvenuti Oil Co. v. Foss Consultants, Inc. green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2017The parol evidence rule does not apply, however, if the written contract is not completely integrated." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Benvenuti Oil Co. v. Foss Consultants, Inc. , 64 Conn.App. 723 , 727, 781 A.2d 435 (2001). 2017The parol evidence rule does not apply, however, if the written contract is not completely integrated." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Benvenuti Oil Co. v. Foss Consultants, Inc. , 64 Conn.App. 723 , 727, 781 A.2d 435 (2001).	3	2001–2017
Bead Chain Manufacturing Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc. green conn · 1981 2 sentences 1995Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc., 183 Conn. 266, 272-73 , 439 A.2d 314 (1981); we disagree that this principle applies to the facts of this particular case. 1995Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc., 183 Conn. 266, 272-73 , 439 A.2d 314 (1981); we disagree that this principle applies to the facts of this particular case.	3	1989–1995
Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. Suto green conn · 1963 2 sentences 1993A review of the case law from both Connecticut and New York confirms the trial court’s determination that regardless of which state’s substantive law is applied, the result in this case is the same because both jurisdictions would have applied the parol evidence rule. 3 The parol evidence rule “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract.” TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp, 218 Conn. 281, 287-88 , 589 A.2d 329 (1991); Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc., 27 Conn. App. 59, 65 , 605 A.2d 550 (1992); Mastrangelo v. Kidder, Pe 1993A review of the case law from both Connecticut and New York confirms the trial court’s determination that regardless of which state’s substantive law is applied, the result in this case is the same because both jurisdictions would have applied the parol evidence rule. 3 The parol evidence rule “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated written contract.” TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp, 218 Conn. 281, 287-88 , 589 A.2d 329 (1991); Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc., 27 Conn. App. 59, 65 , 605 A.2d 550 (1992); Mastrangelo v. Kidder, Pe	3	1967–1993
W. G. Maltby, Inc. v. Associated Realty Co. green conn · 1932 2 sentences 1992Maltby, Inc. v. Associated Realty Co., 114 Conn. 283 , 289 . (other citations omitted) The court finds that, despite the omissions in Exhibit "A", the parties conducted their affairs and tracked the provisions of the document as though it were an effective lease. 1981General Statutes §§ 42a-2-202 and 42a-1-103; Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 106 , 256 A.2d 246 (1969); Maier v. Arsenault, 140 Conn. 364, 368 , 100 A.2d 403 (1953); Maltby, Inc. v. Associated Realty Co., 114 Conn. 283, 289 , 158 A. 548 (1932); 3 Corbin, Contracts §579 (1960); Restatement (Second), Contracts §240 (c) (1973).	3	1946–1992
Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz green connappct · 2003 2 sentences 2022Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [seller’s] claim involves a ques- tion of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn. App. 462, 466 , 823 A.2d 438 (2003); see also Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Afer- zon, 207 Conn. App. 707, 728 , 264 A.3d 130 , cert. denied, 340 Conn. 911 , 264 A.3d 94 (2021). ‘‘The parol evidence rule is premised upon the idea that when the parties have deliberately put their engage- ments in 2022Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, however, but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [seller’s] claim involves a ques- tion of law to which we afford plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn. App. 462, 466 , 823 A.2d 438 (2003); see also Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Afer- zon, 207 Conn. App. 707, 728 , 264 A.3d 130 , cert. denied, 340 Conn. 911 , 264 A.3d 94 (2021). ‘‘The parol evidence rule is premised upon the idea that when the parties have deliberately put their engage- ments in	2	2021–2022
Aillon v. State green conn · 1975	2	2008–2008
Harold Cohn & Co. v. Harco International, LLC green connappct · 2002	2	2003–2004
Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc. green conn · 2002	2	2003–2004
Harold Cohn & Co. v. Harco International, LLC green conn · 2002	2	2003–2004
HLO Land Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of Hartford green conn · 1999	2	2000–2003
Presta v. Monnier green conn · 1958	2	1970–2002
State v. Clay green conn · 1999	2	2001–2001
State v. Perrelli green conn · 1999	2	2001–2001
L & R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank green connappct · 1999	2	2001–2001
State ex rel. Commission for Higher Education v. Wethersfield School of Law, Inc. neutral conn · 1975	2	1978–1978
Johnson v. Vita Built, LLC green connappct · 2022	1	2025–2025
Zhou v. Zhang neutral conn · 2020	1	2022–2022
Ravenswood Construction, LLC v. F. L. Merritt, Inc. neutral connappct · 2007	1	2021–2021
Munroe v. Great American Insurance green conn · 1995	1	2020–2020
Lynch v. Davis green conn · 1980	1	2019–2019
Gabriele v. Brino neutral connappct · 2004	1	2019–2019
Hall v. Bergman green conn · 2010	1	2017–2017
Wayland Investment Fund, LLC v. Millenium Seacarriers, Inc. green nysd · 2000	1	2015–2015
Wardell v. State neutral nyappdiv · 1983	1	2015–2015
Miller v. Steloff green nysd · 1988	1	2015–2015
First International Bank of Israel, Ltd. v. L. Blankstein & Son, Inc. green ny · 1983	1	2015–2015

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a (24) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (8) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-550 (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-192a (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 601 (1916–2026) NY 399 (1906–2026) CA 342 (1922–2026) PA 301 (1921–2026) OH 234 (1937–2026) IL 153 (1877–2025) MO 143 (1909–2025) MI 126 (1938–2026) TN 118 (1932–2026) CT 115 (1930–2025) FL 111 (1928–2024) WA 108 (1916–2025) IA 96 (1916–2025) AZ 96 (1925–2025) NC 91 (1920–2026) GA 90 (1910–2025) OR 88 (1915–2021) VA 80 (1920–2025) AL 79 (1927–2018) LA 78 (1930–2018) MA 74 (1923–2026) MN 72 (1922–2025) IN 67 (1951–2020) UT 63 (1921–2026) AR 61 (1930–2024) MD 61 (1932–2025) SC 60 (1924–2025) NJ 59 (1926–2026) ND 53 (1926–2019) ID 49 (1978–2020) MT 48 (1920–2019) MS 47 (1922–2025) OK 47 (1924–2021) DE 46 (1954–2026) NE 46 (1921–2020) KS 46 (1914–2020) RI 42 (1951–2021) WY 41 (1926–2022) ME 38 (1928–2024) WV 35 (1922–2020) CO 35 (1924–2025) NM 34 (1933–2019) WI 31 (1934–2023) VT 29 (1916–2026) SD 26 (1929–2025) HI 25 (1962–2025) NV 21 (1957–2022) DC 20 (1950–2025) KY 19 (1935–2026) AK 18 (1971–2022) NH 16 (1948–2021) VI 3 (1988–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check