Plaintiff, despite a complete written agreement under which a 30-day payment term was imposed, seeks to introduce parol evidence that the parties intended a 60-to-90-day payment term. The IAS Court correctly found such parol evidence to be inadmissible. No additional term may be evidenced by parol evidence that is inconsistent with the written terms of the agreement (compare, Whirlpool Corp. v Regis Leasing Corp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
CHAPCO, INC. v. JOYCE INT'L, INC.
186 A.D.2d 470 (1992)
Chapco, Inc., Appellant, v. Joyce International, Inc., et al., Respondents
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 22, 1992
October 22, 1992
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
