Court Opinion

ID: 9466573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:20:00.380805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:48.731805
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the opinion of the court, I do not think it necessary to rely upon Columbia Nitrogen, and thus would add a word.
I emphasize that the course of dealing between these two parties is consistent with Brunswick’s claim that it had “otherwise agreed” under Va. Code § 8.2-319(2) to a variation of the meaning of “FAS Norfolk”. Therefore, the evidence should have been admitted, for it “explained” “such terms as are included” in the “written expression” of the parties and as such was admissible under Va. Code § 8.2-202 (the parol evidence rule).
All the law applicable to this case seems apparent to me from the literal terms of the Virginia Code, except the Code is silent on whether or not parties who have “otherwise agreed” under § 8.2-319(2) must have done so in the same “writing” that is their “written expression” under Va. Code § 8.2— 202. There is nothing offered to show that such an agreement need be in that writing, so I agree with the panel holding that it need not be.