EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT CONTRACT IN WRITING WAS EXECUTED ONLY AS SHAM
Tracy, John E.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 1970Lyerly v. Evans S.C.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
An individual is sued on a written contract or, suing on an alleged oral agreement, is confronted by a written contract which he has signed. He offers testimony that, although he executed the instrument which bears his name freely and with full knowledge of its contents, he is not to be held liable thereon because the agreement between the parties was that it should never be legally enforceable, the sole purpose of its execution having been to deceive some third person into a belief that the parties to the instrument had contracted together as in the instrument set forth.