Supreme Court of
284 Or. 523, 588 P.2d 603.
Facts: Hatley signed a lease to rent a farm from
Issue: Should the evidence of the oral agreement been allowed?
Rule: The parol evidence can only be introduced if: (1) the oral agreement was not inconsistent with the written agreement, and (2) the oral agreement was such that it might “naturally” be made separately from the written agreement “by parties situated as were parties to the written contract”.
Analysis: The court says that a term of the oral agreement must contradict an express provision of the written agreement in order to be considered inconsistent with it. Therefore, this part of the rule is satisfied because the written agreement doesn’t say anything about a buy out.
The next question is whether the buy out time limitation would have “naturally” been included in the written agreement.
The court finds it important, though not dispositive, that the contract appears on its face to be on such poor terms to the lessee in regard to the value of the wheat.
Conclusion: The court finds that the trial court was justified in admitting the parol evidence and that the question of whether the agreement was made was correctly left to the jury.