Abstract
A glaring error in Professor Shanker's recent article proves the value of the parol evidence rule at least as effectively as the balance of his scholarly contribution to this journal. In reviewing the arguments of counsel in the Marion PCA v. Cochran case,' Professor Shanker claims that the Court "was led astray by the lawyers" and that" [m]isleading from the [l]awyers" caused the Court to undertake its analysis of the Statute of Frauds.2 He stakes this claim on his apparent belief that counsel did not ask the Court to apply the parol evidence rule to the facts of the case. By subjecting a definitive written text -- the brief of appellant Marion PCA -- to his own extrinsic assumptions, it is Professor Shanker who has gone astray.
Recommended Citation
Kulewicz, John J.
(1990)
"Response Of John Kulewicz To Professor Shanker,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 23:
Iss.
3, Article 8.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol23/iss3/8