Lawwly

Schinkel v. Maxi-Holding, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

565 N.E.2d 1219 (1991)

Relevant factsFree

Before signing a 1987 stock-option contract letting Schinkel (plaintiff) buy Maxi-Holding, Inc. (Maxi) (defendant) shares for $70,000, the parties orally agreed Schinkel could offset that price with his still-undetermined 1986 compensation once it was set. When his 1986 compensation was later fixed at $50,000, Schinkel paid Maxi only the $20,000 difference, and Maxi accepted the payment and even refunded $5,000 once the compensation was later adjusted upward to $55,000 -- yet Maxi still refused to hand over the shares, and Schinkel sued for breach of contract; the trial court dismissed his complaint based on the parol evidence rule, finding he couldn't rely on the pre-signing oral agreement.

IssueFree

Whether, if parties' conduct after executing a written agreement conforms to a previous oral modification to the agreement rather than the terms of the written agreement, the court can infer that the parties have agreed to be bound by the oral modification.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.