Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. - Contracts 11/5...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 11/5 Parol Evidence Rule Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Supreme Court of Montana, 1991 Facts : Sherrodd is a construction company that subcontracted with COP. COP subcontracted with the general contractors Morrison and Schlekeway. Sherrodd claims that while it was visiting the building site, Morrison said there were 25,000 cubic yards of excavation to be performed, and in reliance on this representation, Sherrodd said it could do the job for $97,500. Morrison denies making such a representation. Sherrodd began work before a written contract was signed, and it soon discovered that the quantity was much greater than 25,000 cubic yards. Nevertheless, Sherrodd signed a contract with COP to do the work for $97,500. It claimed that COP threatened to withhold payment for work already done unless the contract was signed. Sherrodd further contends that COP verbally represented that a deal would be worked out where Sherrodd would be paid more than the lump sum in the contract. COP says it only agreed to assist
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.

Page1 / 2

Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. - Contracts 11/5...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online