Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 7-3

Citation
Section 7-3
Parent Document
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-04-17

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

1,019 chars
“Because the parol evidence rule is not an exclusionary rule of evidence . . . but a rule of substantive contract law . . . the [defendants’] claim involves a question of law to which we afford plenary review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conn Acoustics, Inc. v. Xhema Construction, Inc., 88 Conn. App. 741, 745, 870 A.2d 1178 (2005). The court found that the key money agreement, read as a whole, was ambiguous. Therefore, the court allowed parol evidence, including Brune’s testimony, to clarify the agreement’s meaning. We agree with the court that the key money agreement, read as a whole, does not reflect clearly whether the parties intended the key money payment to be made in consideration of the improvements to the building or for the right to enter into the lease. The court properly considered parol evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties in entering *765into the agreement. Therefore, the court’s findings that relied on this evidence were not made in violation of the parol evidence rule.