Monday, April 23, 2007
Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen is a great teaching case. It never ceases to outrage at least some students and thus leads to a very fruitful discussion of the pitfalls of the parol evidence rule. In addition, it shows that a formal approach to contracts law is still with us, as the following Limerick illustates:
Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen
Behold, parol's bitter fruit:
Sherrodd's claim was deemed moot!
If he'd only known,
The great Corbin would groan
To see Williston's rule win repute.