Question

Pino owns a local retail business in downtown Baltimore. The COVID pandemic caused Pino to need to make changes to his physical store location to comply with statewide emergency mandates. As a result, Pino contacted Dante, a local contractor. The two met and discussed the changes needed, including the need to install sneeze-guard pexiglass near the two front cash registers, to adjust the store to only permit customers to travel in one direction through each aisle, to install various hand cleaning stations throughout the store, and to make some upgrades to the filtration capacity of the ventilation system. Subsequently, Dante sent an email to Pino that read: Modifications to Pino Retail Store. Install two 4 'x8' pexiglass sneeze-guards - $400+ materials. Install three hand cleaning stations - $500+ materials. Subcontractor for HVAC to install HEPA filter, modify system return, and system tuning - $1,500. Project to start on Friday. Deposit due to start of $1,000. Pino replied to the email and said Ok, I will have a deposit check available to pickup at the store.

If there is a dispute between the parties as to the terms of the agreement, what is the legal rule of contract law that would resolve this case?
A. Parol Evidence Rule
B. unjust enrichment
C. the Subjective Theory of Contracts
D. statute of frauds

Answer 1

In a dispute between a retail business owner and a contractor over the terms of their agreement, the Parol Evidence Rule would likely resolve the issue by prohibiting the use of additional evidence that contradicts or alters the terms of the written contract formed by their email exchange.

Step-by-step explanation:

If there is a dispute between Pino, the owner of a local retail business, and Dante, a local contractor, regarding the terms of their agreement for modifications to Pino's retail store, the legal rule that may resolve the case is the Parol Evidence Rule. This rule states that when a written contract is intended to be a complete and final representation of the parties' agreement, evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations that might change, contradict, or add to the written contract is generally not admissible in court. Given that Dante sent an email detailing the specifics of the job and costs, and Pino responded agreeing to the terms, it can be argued that their exchange constitutes a written contract. If both parties intended this email exchange to be the final agreement, then the Parol Evidence Rule would likely be applied to prevent either party from introducing additional evidence that contradicts or modifies the terms stated in their written communication.