Parol Evidence Rule Case In Ohio
In Brothers v. Morrone-O'Keefe Dev. Co., LLC, Franklin App. No. 03AP-119, 2003 Ohio 7036 at P 33-34, the Court concluded that the parol evidence rule did not bar appellants from submitting the necessary evidence to prove their claims.
The Court also noted that:
Further, the trial court's decision erroneously includes appellants' claims with regard to Lot 88 in its analysis of the purchase contract for Lot 90.
Appellants claim fraud and misrepresentation not only with regard to assurances from any agent of appellee that appellants' intended home would fit on Lot 90, but also as to similar statements made in connection with Lot 88.
However, the parties did not execute a separate written contract for the purchase of Lot 88.
As such, there exists no written provisions or integration clause in connection with the parties' arrangement to substitute Lot 90 for Lot 88.
Accordingly, the parol evidence rule cannot apply to appellee's agents' statements as to the proposed home fitting on Lot 88.
Therefore, appellants should have been permitted to adduce such evidence in support of their claims of fraud and misrepresentation as to Lot 88; therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. Id. at P 34.