Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS · CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS · Part 9. Written Contracts
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-904 (2026)

Effect Of Written Contract On Oral Agreements

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 28
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 9
  5. 28-2-904 Effect of written contract on oral agreements

TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS

CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS

Part 9. Written Contracts

Effect Of Written Contract On Oral Agreements

28-2-904. Effect of written contract on oral agreements. The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.

History: En. Sec. 2186, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5018, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7520, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1625; Field Civ. C. Sec. 795; re-en. Sec. 7520, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-607.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264. · cites it 12× “Section 28-2-904, MCA, provides that when a contract is executed in writing, the writing "supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc., 2007 MT 159, 164 P.3d 851. · cites it 6× “See § 28-2-904, MCA (“The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
Lindey's Inc. v. Prof'l Consultants, Inc., 797 P.2d 920 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 12× “Did the District Court err in determining that Lindey’s breach of warranty claim against the Estate of Forrest is barred by § 28-2-904, MCA? In the late 1970’s, Lindey’s Inc.”
Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 815 P.2d 1135 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 10× “Section 28-2-904, MCA, provides that: The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
Harris v. Harris, 616 P.2d 1099 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 12× “Section 28-2-904, MCA; Merritt v. Merritt (1974), 165 Mont.”
State Ex Rel. Farm Credit Bank v. Dist. Court of the Third Jud. Dist., 881 P.2d 594 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 9× “Section 28-2-904, MCA, provides that a contract in writing supersedes all oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its subject which preceded or accompanied execution of the written contract.”
Norwest Bank Billings v. Murnion, 684 P.2d 1067 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 8× “contemporaneous oral agreement in order to permit Murnion to prove unconscionability? (3) Whether the trial court erred by failing to apply Section 31-1-231, MCA, dealing with the requirements for a retail installment contract, to the facts of this case? THE PAROL EVIDENCE ISSUE…”
Trs. of Washington — Idaho — Montana Carpenters — Employers Ret. Trust Fund v. Galleria P'ship, 780 P.2d 608 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 6× “Section 28-2-904, MCA. The validity of neither the promissory note nor the trust indenture is in dispute, and there is no claim here of a mistake in those instruments or an imperfection in their writings, so extrinsic evidence may not be considered to vary the terms of those…”
Nw. Nat'l Bank v. Weaver-Maxwell, Inc., 729 P.2d 1258 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 6× “Section 28-2-904, MCA, provides as follows: Effective written contract on oral agreements.”
C. Haydon Ltd. v. Montana Mining Props., Inc., 951 P.2d 46 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 6× “The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. The District Court indicated that MMPI could submit…”
Farris v. Hutchinson, 838 P.2d 374 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 4× “In light of the facts in this case and the applicable law, it is clear that appellant has a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but the majority concludes that all the evidence necessary for appellant to present her case is excluded by the…”
Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 2009 MT 286, 215 P.3d 675. · cites it 2× “See §§ 28-2-904, 28-2-905(1), 70-20-202(1), MCA; Baker Revoc.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.