Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rental Development Corp. of America v. Rubenstein Construction Co., 393 P.2d 144.

31 citing documents.

Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive contract law, , see also Fiorentino v. Travelers Insurance Company, 448 F.Supp.
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Co., , and that a contract should be construed in a manner so as to be reasonable and probable under those circumstances.
McCormack v. Kirtley 563 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1977
McCormack v. Kirtley 563 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1977
Series # 6 Spirituous Liquor License be transferred to her name; and this agreement is conditioned upon this transfer.” (Emphasis added) We have stated: “The rule is well established that a court, when construing an agreement, must put itself in the position of the parties and give effect to their intention as of the time the agreement was made.”
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 551 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 551 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Richards Development Company v. Sligh, supra
Duhame v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. 488 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Duhame v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. 488 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
E. g., Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 464 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1970
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 464 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1970
In Rental .Development Corporation.of America v, Rubenstein‘Construction *331 Company, , , we said: “The rule is well established that a court, when construing an agreement, must put itself in the position of the parties and give effect to their intention as of the time the agreement was made.’’ (Italics ours.)
Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila River Ranch, Inc. 454 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
and see Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 6 Ariz.App.
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company v. Hunter 442 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company v. Hunter 442 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
* * * ” , , we said: “The rule is well established that a court, when construing an agreement, must put itself in the position of the parties and give effect to their intention as of the time the agreement zvas made.
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
However, the Court has also said: “The rule is well established that a court, when construing an agreement, must put itself in the position of the *58 parties and give effect to their intention as of the time the agreement was made.”
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
ies have made a written agreement to which they have both assented as a complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing, (citations omitted) This is what has been called ‘parol evidence rule’ * *
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Traders Furniture Co. 401 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Traders Furniture Co. 401 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by