Mitchell v. Lath
Citation
247 N.Y. 377 (1928)
Facts
Stub — to be completed.
Issue
Stub — to be completed.
Holding
Stub — to be completed.
Rule
An oral collateral agreement can supplement a written contract only if: (1) it is collateral in form, (2) it does not contradict express or implied provisions of the written contract, and (3) it concerns a subject that the parties would not ordinarily be expected to include in the written agreement.
Significance
Establishes the New York three-part test for admissibility of oral collateral agreements; restrictive approach to parol evidence — if the parties would naturally have included the term in writing, the oral agreement is barred.