ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Delaware Business Litigation Report

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Delaware Business Litigation Report

Superior Court: No Ambiguity, No Extrinsic Evidence, No Dice

By Morris James LLP

ADVERTISEMENTS

Dubuque v. Taylor, 2007 WL 3106451 (Del. Super. Oct. 1, 2007)

This case demonstrates that a Delaware court will not consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent at the time of entering an agreement if the terms of the document are unambiguous.

The buyer/plaintiff purchased a transmission business called Goodeal Discount Transmissions of Dover, Inc., thinking it was a sole proprietorship. But after the closing, the franchisor—not the seller—came knocking on the buyer’s door seeking unpaid franchise fees and stating the amount to be paid going forward. Soon thereafter, the buyer sued the seller/former owner for breach of contract for failing to disclose that the business was a franchise, for breach of the contractual warranties, and for fraudulent misrepresentation.

It was undisputed that none of the operative documents relating to the sale made any mention of a franchise. So, the seller tried to introduce extrinsic evidence that he had discussed the franchise with the buyer before the closing. The court, however, applied the parol evidence rule and excluded any such extrinsic evidence for the purpose of interpreting the agreement because the court found that its terms were unambiguous. There was no mention of the franchise in the agreement—period.

Further, the court held that the seller breached its warranty that it was transferring good and marketable title, since the seller could not actually sell the business name, which he purported to convey, without a franchise agreement. As a remedy, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff/buyer for loss of the use of the name, and thus loss of the goodwill he purchased. The measure of damages was roughly one half of the stated value of the intangibles in the sale, which included goodwill and a noncompete.

Full post as published by Delaware Business Litigation Report on November 09, 2007 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0026 secs (from cache 11/01/26 02:31:08)