Opinion ID: 2172313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing flake to give his interpretation of the contract provision regarding structural change?

Text: It is clear from a reading of the transcripts that Flake's counsel persisted in his attempts to get parol evidence in front of the jury. The trial court stated on numerous occasions that he perceived no ambiguity in the lease and consistently sustained objections in this regard. However, the trial court did allow Flake to testify as to what his interpretation of structural alterations was. To that end the following exchange is relevant: By Flake's counsel: Jim, we've been talking about a certain paragraph in the lease you referred to about structural changes. What's your interpretation of that paragraph? Answer by Flake: That once the building is completed, that there will not be any structural changes without my permission, but they can decorate the store and do that type of thing for their business. This interpretation by Flake is consistent with that part of the lease agreement relative to structural alterations. As such, it did not vary the terms of the written agreement. In any event, if there was any error in allowing this testimony, the jury was fully instructed as to the legal definition of structural alterations and additions and the jury is presumed to follow the law of the case as contained in the instructions.