Bernardus A. P. Dobbe and Klazina W. Dobbe - Page 12




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011