George v. Davoli
City Court, City of Geneva, New York
397 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1977)
Facts
George (plaintiff) agreed to purchase jewelry from Davoli (defendant) for $500. According to their written memorandum of sale, George could return the jewelry for a refund of $440 if it was not acceptable to him. The memorandum did not specify a time period in which the jewelry needed to be returned. After receiving the jewelry and deciding not to keep it, George sought to return it for a refund on the following Wednesday. Davoli refused to accept it and George sued. Davoli testified at trial that at the time of the written memorandum, the parties orally agreed that George would have until the following Monday to return the jewelry for a refund. George’s attempt to return the jewelry on the following Wednesday, therefore, was two days too late. After presentation of the evidence at trial, the court considered whether introduction of the oral agreement was permissible under the parol evidence rule.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brind, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
