(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jordan v. Tri County Ag, Inc. , 248 Ga. App. 661, 663 (1), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). This is allowed when "it is manifest that the writing was not intended to speak the whole contract[.]"
Having agreed that the Ward would compensate her attorney for each hour of his work at a particular rate of pay and given that the particular hourly rate would be integral to such an agreement, it could not have been the intent of the Ward and her attorney that there was no hourly rate. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga.App. 661, 663(1), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). But this ambiguity can be resolved by the consideration of parol evidence.
"If the writing appears on its face to be an incomplete contract and if the parol evidence offered is consistent with and not contradictory of the terms of the written instrument, then the parol evidence is admissible to complete the agreement between the parties." Jordan v. Tri County AG, Inc., 546 S.E.2d 528, 531 (Ga.Ct.App. 2001). The plaintiffs do not argue that the oral statement was an independent contract, supported by additional consideration.
The term "racketeering activity" means the commission of at least one of the enumerated types of crimes listed in the RICO statute, also known as predicate offenses. OCGA ยง 16-14-3 (5) (A), (C) ; see also Jordan v. Tri County AG, Inc. , 248 Ga. App. 661, 666 (5), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). As is relevant here, a "pattern" means "[e]ngaging in at least two acts of racketeering activity."
(Citation and footnote omitted.) Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661 ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001). So viewed, the record reflects that Baker is in the residential construction business.
As CMS's claims of theft are not supported by the record, CMS has failed to show two predicate acts to support a pattern of racketeering activity. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661, 666-667 (5) ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Aon on CMS's RICO claim.
A "pattern" means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering activity, which is defined as the commission of a crime in any of 37 specified categories of offenses. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661, 666 (5) ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001); see also OCGA ยง 16-14-3 (9). The complaint alleged that the viatical contracts sold by ABC were unregistered securities sold by an unregistered agent, in violation of the Georgia Securities Act of 1973.
Hall v. Cracker Barrel c.Jordan v. Tri County AG, 248 Ga. App. 661 ( 546 S.E.2d 528) (2001).Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 495(4) ( 405 S.E.2d 474) (1991).
When a contract is unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, vary, or contradict the terms of a written contract. Jordan v. Tri Count AG, Inc., 248 Ga. App. 661, 663, 546 S.E.2d 528, 531 (2001). However, parol evidence is admissible to complete the agreement of the parties "[i]f the writing appears on its face to be an incomplete contract and if the parol evidence offered is consistent with and not contradictory of the terms of the written instrument."