- 8 -
OPINION
I. Evidentiary Issue
At trial, respondent objected generally to the proposed
testimony of Ron Goodson, a general manager from the Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Group of Arizona. Petitioners presented his testimony
for the purpose of addressing and interpreting certain terms in
the agreement. Respondent argued that Mr. Goodson's testimony
was an attempt by petitioners to vary or contradict the written
terms of the agreement in violation of Arizona's parol evidence
rule. Petitioners, on the other hand, contended that Mr. Goodson
was to testify in a manner consistent with the agreement, and
therefore the introduction of parol evidence for the purpose of
interpreting the intent of the parties was proper under Arizona
law.
The Court allowed Mr. Goodson to testify conditionally for
the purpose of evaluating whether his testimony would be in
conflict with Arizona's parol evidence rule and reserved ruling
on respondent's objection. We briefly describe Mr. Goodson's
relevant testimony.
Mr. Goodson testified that during the 60-day period
following the end of each 6-month period of the agreement, Pepsi
investigated whether the theater company was in compliance with
the agreement. He, however, described only the investigation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011