Court Opinion

ID: 9934506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:54:08.713864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:26.007753
License: Public Domain

I am confused as to why the following sentences appear in the majority opinion:
 "As a general proposition, the parol evidence rule applies to contract actions, not actions in tort. Parol evidence is ordinarily admissible to show that a written agreement was procured by fraud."
In the case at issue, with regard to the fraud claim, HSA does not argue that the parol evidence rule should have been applied to exclude evidence of the pre-employment negotiations. The parol evidence rule may apply in an action where a plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for oral misrepresentations that are followed by an executed, written document that contradicts those misrepresentations. (This is a subject that I will more thoroughly address in a case in which it is properly presented by the parties.)
For this and other reasons, among them the use ofHoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. *Page 753 Campbell, 512 So.2d 725 (Ala. 1987), as authority to use the harmless error doctrine under the facts in this case, I concur in the result.