Opinion ID: 773182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Parol Evidence Issue.

Text: 17 Nebraska Beef argues the district court erred in admitting parol evidence that contradicted the unambiguous terms of the written subcontract. This contention borders on the frivolous. Parol evidence is admissible to aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous contract. Label Concepts v. Westendorf Plastics, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 335, 339-40 (Neb. 1995). Prior to trial, both parties listed as an issue for trial whether the subcontract was ambiguous, and neither party asked the district court to rule on that issue before trial. At trial, both parties offered extrinsic evidence on this issue without objection. Just prior to the instruction conference, the district court ruled that the subcontract was unambiguous, commenting that the court was at a little bit of a loss why neither of the parties have objected to [the extrinsic evidence] on the basis of the parol evidence rule. We decline to review the parol evidence question for plain error. It was affirmatively waived by both parties before and during trial. 18