Opinion
January 13, 1976.
PRESENT: Paolino, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.
EVIDENCE. Ambiguous Writing. Evidence to Resolve Meaning. Prior Contemporaneous Oral Statements. Where the disputed provision of the writing in question was susceptible of more than one meaning, evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral statements was admissible to aid in its interpretation and was not barred by the parol evidence rule.
APPEAL of defendant from judgment in Superior Court in case tried before Giannini, J., heard and appeal denied and dismissed and judgment affirmed.
Abedon Visconti Ltd., Girard R. Visconti, for plaintiff.
Stephen A. Fanning, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., for defendant.
In our opinion, the disputed provision of the writing in question is susceptible of more than one meaning. Evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral statements was therefore admissible to aid in its interpretation and was not barred by the parol evidence rule. Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 111 R.I. 747, 749, 306 A.2d 806, 807 (1973); Hawkins v. Smith, 105 R.I. 669, 674-76, 254 A.2d 747, 751-52 (1969); Supreme Woodworking Co. v. Zuckerberg, 82 R.I. 247, 252, 107 A.2d 287, 290 (1954). Inasmuch as the explanatory evidence here admitted supports the result reached in the Superior Court, the defendant's appeal must be denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Roberts participated in the argument but not in the decision. Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.