Cole v. JNO. M. Oakey, Inc.
Virginia Circuit Court
101 Va. Cir. 288 (2019)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Traci Lynn Cole (plaintiff) entered into a contract with JNO. M. Oakey, Inc. (Oakey) (defendant), a company that provided cremation and funeral services. The contract obligated Oakey to provide cremation services for the remains of Traci Lynn’s husband. The contract specified that the cremated remains should be returned to Carolyn Cunningham, a friend of Traci Lynn’s, or Jessica Cole, Traci Lynn’s stepdaughter. Traci Lynn allegedly had a conversation with Oakey employees about her desire for the return of her husband’s cremated remains. However, two urns containing all of the cremated remains were returned to Jessica, who refused to give Traci Lynn any of the remains. Traci Lynn filed a complaint against Oakey, asserting that Oakey had violated the contract by returning both urns to Jessica. Traci Lynn argued that, based on the contract and the discussion she had with Oakey employees, one urn was to be given to Cunningham and the other was to be given to Jessica. Traci Lynn argued that the partial-integration doctrine applied because the contract, which did not specify how many urns each person should receive, was incomplete. Therefore, Traci Lynn argued, the evidence of her conversation with Oakey employees should be considered. Oakey filed a demurrer, arguing that the parol-evidence rule precluded consideration of evidence of Traci Lynn’s conversation with Oakey employees to supply terms of the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clemens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.