Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brand v. Elledge, 419 P.2d 531.

46 citing documents.

Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., –92 (App. 1987) (discussing accountant malpractice); Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., –37 (1986) (same); –61 (1966) (discussing partnership accounting).
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
it may not be used to change, alter or vary the express terms in a written agreement.” Town of Marana, 230 Ariz. at 147, ¶ 21 ().
Bonafede v. Giannangelo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bonafede v. Giannangelo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5 (App. 2003) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if no reasonable evidence supports it.”).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
If the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, “parol evidence may be used to explain [the ambiguity], but in the absence of fraud or mistake, it may not be used to change, alter or vary the express terms in a written agreement.”
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
When interpreting a contract, “parol evidence may be used to explain an ambiguous contract, but in the absence of fraud or mistake, it may not be used to change, alter or vary the express terms in a written agreement.”
Chandler Medical Building Partners v. Chandler Dental Group 855 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Chandler Medical Building Partners v. Chandler Dental Group 855 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
That courts should not be concerned with the undisclosed intent of the parties is made crystal-clear by a long line of decisions of our Supreme Court, including:
Gill v. Kreutzberg 537 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gill v. Kreutzberg 537 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lessner Dental Laboratories, Inc. v. Kidney 492 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Lessner Dental Laboratories, Inc. v. Kidney 492 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hitching Post Lodge, , ; , Dunlap, supra
Zellerbach Paper Company v. Valley National Bank 477 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zellerbach Paper Company v. Valley National Bank 477 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Graham v. Shooke 474 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Graham v. Shooke 474 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State ex rel. Herman v. Electrical District No. 2 469 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State ex rel. Herman v. Electrical District No. 2 469 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 6 Ariz.App.
School District Number One v. Hastings 466 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
School District Number One v. Hastings 466 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
ct depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs * * 3 Holmes, The Path of the Law That courts should not be concerned with the undisclosed intent of the parties is made crystal-clear by a long line of decisions of our Supreme Court, including:
Hilburn v. General Electric Credit Corp. 442 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Hilburn v. General Electric Credit Corp. 442 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Deck v. Hammer 440 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Deck v. Hammer 440 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
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
Our own Supreme Court has generally taken the view that “parol evidence” may only be admitted to explain a contract when there is an ambiguity
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. 430 P.2d 128 Ariz. 1967
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. 430 P.2d 128 Ariz. 1967
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 .