- 12 -
801 P.2d 222, 229 (Wash. 1990). However, “extrinsic evidence is
admissible as to the entire circumstances under which the
contract was made, as an aid in ascertaining the parties’
intent.” Id. at 228. For parol evidence to be admissible, it is
not necessary that we first find that the contract is ambiguous.
See id. at 230. The Supreme Court of Washington clarified that
as stated in Olsen v. Nichols, 86 Wash. 185, 149 P.
668, parol evidence is admissible to show the situation
of the parties and the circumstances under which a
written instrument was executed, for the purpose of
ascertaining the intention of the parties and properly
construing the writing. Such evidence, however, is
admitted, not for the purpose of importing into a
writing an intention not expressed therein, but with
the view of elucidating the meaning of the words
employed. Evidence of this character is admitted for
the purpose of aiding in the interpretation of what is
in the instrument, and not for the purpose of showing
intention independent of the instrument. It is the
duty of the court to declare the meaning of what is
written, and not what was intended to be written. If
the evidence goes no further than to show the situation
of the parties and the circumstances under which the
instrument was executed, then it is admissible. [Id. at
229-230; emphasis added.]
In Berg, the Supreme Court of Washington made it clear that
this rule authorizes the use of extrinsic evidence only to
interpret the meaning of the words of a contract, and “not for
the purpose of showing intention independent of the instrument.”
Id.; see also Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 974 P.2d 836, 842-847
(Wash. 1999); In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 937 P.2d 1062, 1066
(Wash. 1997).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011