Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Landstromgreen2 sentences2011“A merger clause expresses the intention of the parties to treat the writing as a complete integration of their agreement.” Wilson v. Landstrom, 281 S.C. 260, 266 , 315 S.E.2d 130, 134 (Ct.App.1984); see also 11 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 33:21 (4th ed.1999) (same); Black’s Law Dictionary 880 (9th ed.2009) (defining an integration clause, also termed a merger clause, as “[a] contractual provision stating that the contract represents the parties’ complete and final agreement and supersedes all informal understandings and oral agreements relating to 2011“A merger clause expresses the intention of the parties to treat the writing as a complete integration of their agreement.” Wilson v. Landstrom, 281 S.C. 260, 266 , 315 S.E.2d 130, 134 (Ct.App.1984); see also 11 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 33:21 (4th ed.1999) (same); Black’s Law Dictionary 880 (9th ed.2009) (defining an integration clause, also termed a merger clause, as “[a] contractual provision stating that the contract represents the parties’ complete and final agreement and supersedes all informal understandings and oral agreements relating to | 2 | 2 |
Gilliland v. Elmwood Propertiesgreen2 sentences2011See Gilliland v. Elmwood Props. , 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); id. ("This is especially true when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause."). 2011See Gilliland v. Elmwood Props. , 301 S.C. 295, 302 , 391 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1990) ("The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary, or explain the written instrument."); id. ("This is especially true when the written instrument contains a merger or integration clause."). | 1 | 1 |
Teg-Paradigm Environmental, Inc. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011First, the Subcontract explicitly provides that over fifty federal regulations were “hereby incorporated.” Second, the integration clause in the Preamble immediately before the Teaming Agreement language provides that the Subcontract supersedes prior written agreements except for the “Proprietary Data Exchange Agreement executed by the parties on 16 March 2000.” 2 See TEG-Paradigm Envtl., 465 F.3d at 1339 (“One common way to incorporate extrinsic evidence is through an integration clause that expressly incorporates the extrinsic evidence.”). *309 If the Subcontract does not incorporate the ent | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Porter Brothers, Inc.green1 sentence1988See Moss v. Porter Brothers, Inc., 292 S. C. 444, 357 S. E. (2d) 25 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that parol or extrinsic evidence of a usage or *319 custom is not admissible where the contract expresses the intent of the parties in clear and unambiguous language). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Formento v. Encanto Business Park
green
2 sentences2003Furthermore, it has been held that “a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent.” Id., 744 P.2d at 26 . 2003Furthermore, it has been held that “a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent.” Id., 744 P.2d at 26 . | 2 | 1990–2003 |
Blackwell v. Faucett
green
1 sentence1988S. Evidence § 1013(2) at 605-07 (1964); Blackwell v. Faucett, supra. The parol evidence rule is particularly applicable where the writing in question has an integration clause. 30 Am. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.