Law School Case Briefs
Start by searching for a case name or citation above.
Discover a Random Brief
W.W.W. ASSOCS v. GIANCONTIERI
Court of Appeals of the State of New York (1990) | 77 N.Y.2d 157
TL;DR: A real estate buyer argued a reciprocal cancellation clause was secretly for its sole benefit. The court, applying the parol evidence rule, refused to consider extrinsic evidence to alter the contract's clear language and upheld the seller's right to cancel.
Legal Significance: This case strongly affirms the “four corners” rule of contract interpretation, holding that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to create an ambiguity in a clear, complete, and unambiguous written agreement, particularly in real property transactions where certainty is paramount.