Re: To I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
dzwei said:
Thanks for the "pep" talk!! I do appreciate it! However, isn't it true that when the judge says to me - Do you owe this money and I would have to answer "yes"......he will definitely find in the dealership's favor! Even though I did not know of this mistake at the time the contract was signed - when it was finally explained to me 6 weeks later - I can see that the dealership is right ...and that I DO owe the additional $1000.00. I know that you are speaking from the vantage point that you are an attorney - and attorneys like a good fight! I actually like a good fight too - but the answer to THAT question that the judge will ask me - I am afraid, will lose me the case right then and there! Sorry to keep beating this horse to death...I know nothing is a sure thing - but when I answer YES, the magistrate will throw the book at me....(at least, that is how it is on Judge Joe Brown and the other court TV programs!!@#@!@#@!!!!!!)Thanks again for anything further on this subject that you have to say!
My response:
The answer to that question is "No, I don't owe the money, your honor".
This is why I kept hammering away at their "superior" knowledge, their "bargaining power", that it is "their contract" (they wrote it), and that they had "two different people review the contract before signing". Then everyone signed when they were happy with the terms and conditions.
You're also getting into an area called the "parole evidence rule". Parole evidence is that "outside evidence" used to explain something within the four corners of a written contract.
Courts abhore using outside sources to explain matters within a written contract. Basically, you must insist that the judge ONLY look within the four corners of that written contract and not at something from the outside. The fact remains that they had all the information they wanted to use when "they" wrote that contract.
The "parol evidence rule" bars extrinsic evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous "integrated" written instrument. [Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222, 225, 65 Cal.Rptr. 545, 547; Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Calif. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 388, 392]
"Terms set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement." [Ca Civ Pro § 1856(a) (emphasis added); see also Ca Coml § 2202, applicable to commercial transactions; and Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E & P, Inc. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 237]
Parties to a transaction should be able to clearly express their intent regarding the nature and scope of their legal relationship and be able to rely on the legal certainty of that expression. [Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 973, 1011, 285 Cal.Rptr. 870, 893]
"The law presumes a written contract supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements . . . and where the writing is integrated, the presumption cannot be overcome." [Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Med. Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379, 1385, 265 Cal.Rptr. 412, 416 (emphasis added)]
The "parol evidence rule" is not a rule of evidence but, rather, a rule of substantive law. [Tahoe Nat'l Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 22-23, 92 Cal.Rptr. 704, 713-714; BMW of No. America, Inc. v. New Motor Veh. Bd. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 980, 990, 209 Cal.Rptr. 50, 56]
THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT :
"It is not a question of credibility or reliability. The rule makes the integrated written agreement binding "no matter how persuasive the evidence of additional oral or written understandings." [Marani v. Jackson (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 695, 701, 228 Cal.Rptr. 518, 521 (emphasis in original)]"
In your written contract, if you look closely, there is a phrase that says something like, "Oral promises or agreements shall have no effect on this written agreement and this contract cannot be changed except in writing and with the consent of all parties." THAT'S THE "INTEGRATION" CLAUSE OF THE WRITTEN CONTRACT. THEY CANNOT SHOW "PAROLE EVIDENCE" IF THERE IS AN "INTEGRATION CLAUSE" IN THE CONTRACT and their signature on the contract demonstrates that the terms and conditions are the "embodiment" of all previous discussions concerning the sale and financing of the car.
Because parol evidence cannot alter or vary the terms of an integrated writing, evidence of prior or collateral oral agreements is legally irrelevant. [Tahoe Nat'l Bank v. Phillips, supra, 4 Cal.3d at 23, 92 Cal.Rptr. at 714; BMW of No. America v. New Motor Veh. Bd., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at 990, 209 Cal.Rptr. at 57]
Your story could very well be that the written contract is the embodiment of a previous oral agreement that you are to receive credit for that $1,000.00, and that the dealership wrote the contract based upon that oral agreement. If the judge is going to listen to "their" parole evidence, then he should listen to this, your parole evidence. This could very well "tip the scales" back in your favor.
Fight the fight. Make the dealership WORK for the money if they want to spend the money to get the money.
Good luck to you.
IAAL