San Roque Properties, Inc. v. Pierce
Before: Bishop
[380]
BISHOP, J.,
pro tem.
‘1 It has been held many times that a written agreement may be abrogated by an oral contract and that in such a case section 1698 (of the Civil Code) has no application.”
(Dugan
v.
Phillips,
(1926) 77 Cal. App. 268, 277 [246 Pac. 566], citing cases.) This is true, even where the subject matter of the written contract is the sale and purchase of real estate.
(Tompkins
v.
Davidow,
(1915) 27 Cal. App. 327 [149 Pac. 788] ;
Haberman
v.
Sawall,
(1925) 72 Cal. App. 576 [237 Pac. 776].) The fact that one of the signatories is a corporation does not make the rule inapplicable. Note:
Hooke
v.
Great Western Lumber Co.,
(1921) 54 Cal. App. 681 [202 Pac. 492];
Sauble
v.
Gary South Coast Agency,
(1922) 56 Cal. App. 606 [206 Pac. 141] ;
Producers Fruit Co.
v.
Goddard,
(1925) 75 Cal. App. 737 [243 Pac. 686] ;
Klein Norton Co.
v.
Cohen,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)