FANDOM


Citation Edit

Security Leasing Co. v. Flinco, lnc., 23 Utah.2d 242, 461 P.2d 460 (1969) (full-text).

Factual Background Edit

The plaintiff supplied a computer under a five-year lease agreement containing an integration clause. Flinco sought to return the equipment, claiming that because of incomplete computer programming the computer could not be used.

Trial Court Proceedings Edit

Since the written contract did not disclose who was to do the programming, the court held that parol evidence was admissible to determine that responsibility.[1] By reviewing the parol evidence, the court determined that the programming was to be done by Security Leasing and sustained Flinco's rejection of the computer system.[2]

ReferencesEdit

  1. 23 Utah.2d at 244, 461 P.2d at 461-62.
  2. Id. at 245, 461 P.2d at 462.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.