HOLDINGS: [1]-An oral stock redemption agreement was not made unenforceable by the parol evidence rule; [2]-The evidence supported a finding that the parties intended the terms of the oral stock redemption agreement to be part of their agreement; [3]-The evidence also supported a finding that the oral stock redemption agreement naturally would be a separate agreement and would not have been included in the writing; [4]-Because a contribution and purchase agreement was not intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the parties’ agreement, evidence of the oral stock redemption agreement was admissible as a separate oral agreement or to supplement the contribution and purchase agreement with additional terms; [5]-Plaintiff was a party to the oral stock redemption agreement and therefore had standing to sue for its breach.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides counsel on intentional interference with prospective economic advantage California
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.