Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

793 chars

Here, the trial court admitted precisely such evidence.11 Shapiro testified
that because of the wide range of vendors at the Swap Meet, the list of
permanent fixtures in paragraph 4 was not meant to be exhaustive. Aljabban
and Carrasco presented no conflicting parol evidence on that issue. When, as
here “the competent parol evidence is not conflicting, construction of the
instrument is a question of law, and the appellate court will independently
construe the writing.” (Id. at p. 1166.) Based on the evidence, we conclude
that the parenthetical reference to “walls, flooring, and security gates” in
paragraph 4 was not intended to be an exclusive list of the type of booth
construction that would constitute a permanent fixture that could not be
removed when the vendor vacated the space.

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text