Case Name: Frederick Eichenauer, Plaintiff, v. The Rentz Candy Co., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-03
Citations: 43 Misc. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Eichenauer, Plaintiff, v. The Rentz Candy Co., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 151–153

Head Matter:
Frederick Eichenauer, Plaintiff, v. The Rentz Candy Co., Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,
March, 1904.)
Oral evidence—When admissible to vary a written contract.
It is only where a written contract does not express the particular thing at all, or anything inconsistent with it, or expresses it ambiguously, that oral evidence of it is admissible.
A written contract of employment at a fixed price per week, but not expressly mentioning any term, is not ambiguous as to the term, and therefore parol proof is inadmissible to show that the term agreed upon was one year.
Motion by the plaintiff on the minutes for a new trial. Action to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract of employment for one year by a discharge of the plaintiff before the end of the year, the contract being in writing as follows, and signed by both parties, viz.:
“ Jan. 20, 1902.
“Agreement between1 F. Eichenaur and the Rentz Candy Co. The Rentz Candy Co. of the first part will pay E. Eichenauer of the second part Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per week for his services. He is to devote all of his time to their best interest and the Rentz Candy Company hereby agree to pay the said E. Eichenauer Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per week and should the business at 318 West 42" Street be more in volume than Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per week the parties of the first part will pay the party of the second part 3# commission on all business above Five Hundred (500) up to One Thousand Dollars (1000) per week.”
Jacob Marx for plaintiff.
John T. Horton for defendant.

Opinion:
Gaynob, J.:
The plaintiff wanted to give in evidence the conversation which was had at the time the contract was made and reduced to writing, in order to show that the term of one' year was agreed upon. The objection of the defendant that this would vary the terms of the written agreement was sustained and the complaint dismissed. The written agreement' is not ambiguous in meaning in respect of the term; on the contrary, an employment at so much a week has a settled legal meaning. Oral evidence cannot be received to change the contract by the week expressed in the writing to one for a year. It is only where the written contract does not express the particular thing at all, or anything inconsistent with it, or expresses it ambiguously, that oral evidence.of it is admissible, and not always then (Wilson v. Deen, 74 N. Y. 531). The language of the opinion in Chapin v. Dobson (78 N. Y. 79) is very large, and will continue to need to be limited and distinguished (Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. p. 294).
The motion is denied.