Poeppel v. Lester
South Dakota Supreme Court
827 N.W.2d 580 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Rob Poeppel (plaintiff) signed a contract with Lucas Lester (defendant), agreeing to sell his 25 percent voting interest in Coldwell Banker Lewis-Kirkeby-Hall Real Estate. The contract contained both parties’ acknowledgement that Poeppel had disclosed to Lester certain financial information about Coldwell. Lester did not attend the closing and did not pay the agreed-upon sale price. Poeppel sued Lester for breach of contract. Lester claimed that the contract was fraudulently signed because Poeppel had not provided the financial information about Coldwell. Specifically, Lester sought to introduce evidence that Poeppel stated that he could not disclose the information until after the execution of the contract. The trial court found that the contract was unambiguous with regard to whether the disclosure occurred and that the parol evidence rule barred the introduction of any evidence about the lack of disclosure of the financial documents. Lester appealed, arguing that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was in error.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilbur, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
