Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Citation
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Parent Document
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1973-10-30
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1789760/gee-v-nieberg/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
- Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (1973)
Full Text
819 charsWhile it is true that a written contract cannot be contradicted, modified, or altered by parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements, the parol evidence rule does not prohibit parol evidence of an agreement entered into subsequent to the time when the written contract was executed to alter or abrogate the written contract. George F. Robertson Plastering Company v. Phil Magidson and Oakland Realty Company, 271 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo.1954); Smith v. A. Githens, 271 S.W.2d 374, 380 [19] (Mo.App.1954); McGovern v. Madame Elize, Inc., 137 Mise. 599, 244 N.Y.S. 169 (1930); Jennings v. Petrol Corp., 87 C.A.2d 63, 195 P.2d 899 (1948). Here, all of plaintiffs’ testimony as to the oral agreement was subsequent to the time of the written execution of the lease. Consequently, we rule this issue against defendant.