Uploaded June 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Ward v. Intermountain | 907 P.2d 264 (1995)
Under the parole evidence rule, extrinsic evidence, meaning evidence from outside the contract, isn't admissible to contradict, change, or add to the terms of an integrated written contract.
In Ward versus Intermountain Farmers Association, the court considered whether a party could rely on extrinsic evidence to explain a contract's meaning.
Farmer Earl Ward contracted with Intermountain Farmers Association to purchase fertilizer and herbicide.
As part of the agreement, Intermountain was to spray the fertilizer and herbicide mixture on Ward's safflower crop. Unfortunately, the mixture was contaminated with an additional powerful herbicide.
After Intermountain sprayed Ward's field, the safflower began to die.
Ward and Intermountain eventually entered into a release agreement pursuant to which in exchange for a payment, Ward agreed to release Intermountain from, quote, any and all damages caused by the spraying of my approximate nineteen acres of safflower, unquote.
Intermountain assured Ward that future crops in the affected field would be safe. Intermountain also said that if a problem did arise, they'd address it then.
The next spring, Ward planted beans in the same field. The beans also died. Intermountain refused to compensate Ward for the damage to his beans.
Ward sued Intermountain in Utah State Court for breach of contract, seeking to recover for the damage to the beans and ongoing crop damage. Intermountain moved for summary judgment on the ground that the release agreement precluded Ward's claim. Ward argued that the release was ambiguous, and that extrinsic evidence showed it was meant to apply only to the damage to his safflower crop. The trial court granted summary judgment for Intermountain.
Ward appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Ward v. Intermountain | 907 P.2d 264 (1995)
Under the parole evidence rule, extrinsic evidence, meaning evidence from outside the contract, isn't admissible to contradict, change, or add to the terms of an integrated written contract.
In Ward versus Intermountain Farmers Association, the court considered whether a party could rely on extrinsic evidence to explain a contract's meaning.
Farmer Earl Ward contracted with Intermountain Farmers Association to purchase fertilizer and herbicide.
As part of the agreement, Intermountain was to spray the fertilizer and herbicide mixture on Ward's safflower crop. Unfortunately, the mixture was contaminated with an additional powerful herbicide.
After Intermountain sprayed Ward's field, the safflower began to die.
Ward and Intermountain eventually entered into a release agreement pursuant to which in exchange for a payment, Ward agreed to release Intermountain from, quote, any and all damages caused by the spraying of my approximate nineteen acres of safflower, unquote.
Intermountain assured Ward that future crops in the affected field would be safe. Intermountain also said that if a problem did arise, they'd address it then.
The next spring, Ward planted beans in the same field. The beans also died. Intermountain refused to compensate Ward for the damage to his beans.
Ward sued Intermountain in Utah State Court for breach of contract, seeking to recover for the damage to the beans and ongoing crop damage. Intermountain moved for summary judgment on the ground that the release agreement precluded Ward's claim. Ward argued that the release was ambiguous, and that extrinsic evidence showed it was meant to apply only to the damage to his safflower crop. The trial court granted summary judgment for Intermountain.
Ward appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
