Scott v. Wall

The Walls' (defendants) restaurant purchase from the Scotts (plaintiffs) was contractually conditioned on the Walls securing an acceptable lease renewal, and when they could not by closing, the Scotts orally promised that if the Walls signed and paid the $15,000 deposit but ultimately still failed to get a lease, the Scotts would release them and refund the deposit; the Walls never got a lease and defaulted, and when the Scotts sued to collect, the trial court held the parol evidence rule barred the Walls from proving this oral condition.