Byrd v. Rees

17 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Falke

    474 So. 2d 1044 (Miss. 1985)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that where writing is clear, parol evidence may not be used to contradict the written language

    See, Valley Mills Division of Merchants Co. v. Southeastern Hatcheries of Mississippi, Inc., 245 Miss. 71, 145 So.2d 698 (1962). In Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 171 So.2d 864 (1965), this Court set forth the same rule above but allowed extrinsic evidence to clear up an ambiguity and explain the language: "the plan of the operation heretofore in effect." There the Court stated:

  2. McDonnell v. Miller

    655 F. App'x 229 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    Generally, parol evidence "is not admissible to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict written instruments." Byrd v. Rees, 171 So. 2d 864, 867 (Miss. 1965). However, "[t]he parol evidence rule has no application where the writing is incomplete, ambiguous or where the evidence is not offered to vary the terms of the written agreement."

  3. Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

    No. 06-61130 (5th Cir. Sep. 7, 2007)

    Although the parol evidence rule is not a bar to evidence of a subsequent contract modification, see Dixie S. Indus. Coating, Inc. v. Miss. Power Co., 872 So. 2d 769, 772 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004), the rule is activated only upon the discovery of ambiguity in a contract and is thus inapplicable here. Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed." (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 882, 171 So. 2d 864, 867 (1965))). Although Eastline also states that "[a]n oral modification may be made even where the contract provides that modification must be in writing," 524 So. 2d at 584, that statement was supported by authority holding that "a course of dealing [between the parties] which repeatedly disregards such stipulation" may amount to waiver.

  4. Leonard v. Nationwide Mut

    499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 132 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar anti-concurrent causation clause rendered the applicable provision effective even when another peril contributes to the damage

    Smith v. Smith, 872 So.2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed." (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 882, 171 So.2d 864, 867 (1965))). Although Eastline also states that "[a]n oral modification may be made even where the contract provides that modification must be in writing," 524 So.2d at 584, that statement was supported by authority holding that "a course of dealing [between the parties] which repeatedly disregards such stipulation" may amount to waiver.

  5. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman

    896 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 752 times
    Holding that the guardian was unable to meet his burden of showing that disputed issues of material fact remained when the only support he was able to offer was the widow's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights during her deposition

    He relies on the facts that Dr. Gutterman dealt with the insurance agent and that State Farm accepted the change in beneficiary form. Absent ambiguity, mistake or fraud, effect is to be given to contractual language. Byrd v. Rees, 171 So.2d 864, 867, 251 Miss. 876 (1965). Finding none of these flaws, we are bound by the terms of the contract.

  6. Joan Cravens, Inc. v. DEAS Constr. Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-385-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    However, though this is a "bedrock rule," it "is subject to many exceptions and is said to be very flexible." Id. (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 171 So.2d. 864, 867 (Miss. 1965)). One of these exceptions is fraud.

  7. McLane Services v. Alstom Power, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 3:04CV974LS (S.D. Miss. Jun. 5, 2006)

    1969) (stating that "the parol evidence rule does not become applicable unless there is an integration of the agreement, that is, unless the parties have assented to a certain writing as a statement of the agreement between them").See Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("`Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed.'") (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 171 So. 2d 864, 867 (Miss. 1965)).See Brown v. Ohman, 42 So. 2d 209, 213 (Miss.

  8. J. Russell Flowers, Inc. v. Itel Corp.

    495 F. Supp. 88 (N.D. Miss. 1980)   Cited 7 times
    In Flowers, the court found that a letter which stated that "financing is firm, however, it will be reduced to a more definitive document within 30 days," id. at 89, was not a binding contract because the language of the letter "openly contemplated further negotiations as to a `more definitive document.'"

    However, the court's interpretation must be consistent with recognized legal principles. Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 171 So.2d 864, 867 (1965). The crucial question here is whether or not the letter of February 26, 1979, constituted a binding contract.

  9. Phillips Bros. v. Winstead

    129 So. 3d 906 (Miss. 2014)   Cited 32 times
    Recognizing an LLC member had an individual claim for legal damages for the breach of fiduciary duties owed him separate from a claim of breach of fiduciary duties owed to the company

    It is well established that “parol extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict written instruments, contractual in nature, and which are valid, complete, unambiguous and unaffected by accident, mistake or fraud.” Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 171 So.2d 864, 867 (Miss.1965). “Our concern is not nearly so much with what the parties may have intended, but with what they said, since the words employed are by far the best resource for ascertaining the intent and assigning meaning with fairness and accuracy.”

  10. In re Estate of Fitzner

    2001 CA 1898 (Miss. 2003)   Cited 39 times
    Addressing the parol evidence rule

    ¶ 17. Although parol evidence which contradicts, varies, alters, adds to, or detracts from the written agreement is not admissible, this bedrock rule "is subject to many exceptions and is said to be very flexible." Turner, 799 So.2d at 32; Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 882, 171 So.2d 864, 867 (1965). "Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed."