Gold Kist, Inc. v. Carr
Court of Appeals of Texas
886 S.W.2d 425 (1994)
Relevant factsFree
Carr (plaintiff) initially negotiated exclusive rights to haul peanuts for Gold Kist (defendant), but Gold Kist's corporate office rejected that arrangement, and the final written agreement instead stated Gold Kist had no obligation to engage Carr's hauling services; when Carr questioned this before signing, a Gold Kist manager explained it just meant Gold Kist wouldn't use him if he underperformed, and Carr signed. Carr later sued for breach, claiming he was entitled to exclusive hauling rights, and the trial court ruled in his favor.
IssueFree
Whether extrinsic evidence is generally admissible to contradict the terms of an unambiguous written contract.
Related cases
Gibb v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.518 N.W.2d 910 (1994)Batfilm Productions, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Inc.Consolidated Cases No. BC 051653 and No. BC 051654, 1994 Cal. Appl. LEXIS 1333 (1994)Chronister Oil Co. v. Unocal Refining and Marketing34 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1994)Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Intra Brokers, Inc.24 F.3d 1099 (1994)City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund511 U.S. 328 (1994)