Bulley& Andrews, Inc. v. Symons Corp.

Brief Fact Summary.

Bulley& Andrews, Inc. (Bulley) sued to recover expenses from Symons Corp. (Symons) in accord with a contract to build on the Symons property.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The parol evidence rule does not prohibit parties from introducing evidence that a contract was modified by the way the parties carried out the agreement.

Facts.

Bulley& Andrews, Inc. (Bulley) entered a contract with Symons Corp. (Symons) to build on the Symons property. The contract stipulated that Symons would supply Bulley with equipment for Bulley’s concrete work on the property, and when Bulley submitted a claim to recover the expense that the equipment caused, Symons refused to pay, Bulley sued. The trial court granted judgment to Symon.

Issue.

Whether the parol evidence rule prohibits parties from introducing evidence that a contract was modified by the way the parties carried out the agreement?

Held.

No. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Bulley consented to the equipment provided by Symon and is not entitled to any extra payment not set out in the contract.

Discussion.

The parol evidence rule does not prohibit parties from introducing evidence that a contract was modified by the way the parties carried out the agreement. If a contract is ambiguous about contract terms, then the court may turn to the parties’ actions to clear up the ambiguous terms.