Chapter 42

42.020

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The attachment of a substantial copy of a note did not constitute a subscribing of the mortgage and thus failed to constitute execution. Turner v. Clark, 277 Or 307, 560 P2d 624 (1977)

42.220

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Trial court’s characterization of deed of trust as “in the nature of a performance bond” did not violate parol evidence rule as this section requires that court consider circumstances surrounding transaction to determine purposes to which parties intended to apply instrument. Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F2d 364 (1985)

Seller’s changing relationship with corporation, including his final severing of ties by sale of his stock, plus sale of stock at very low price in exchange for indemnification were proper evidence. Rodway v. Arrow Light Truck Parts, 96 Or App 232, 772 P2d 1349 (1989)

Parol evidence of circumstances surrounding creation of agreement is admissible to determine whether terms of integrated writing are ambiguous. Abercrombie v. Hayden Corp., 320 Or 279, 883 P2d 845 (1994); Criterion Interests, Inc. v. The Deschutes Club, 136 Or App 239, 902 P2d 110 (1995), modified 137 Or App 312, 903 P2d 421 (1995), Sup Ct review denied; Batzer Construction, Inc. v. Boyer, 204 Or App 309, 129 P3d 773 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Parties’ precontract negotiations constitute circumstances underlying formation of contract. Batzer Construction, Inc. v. Boyer, 204 Or App 309, 129 P3d 773 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 28 WLR 223 (1992)

42.240

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 28 WLR 223 (1992)

42.250

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Determination of trade custom or usage is one for trier of facts. May v. Chicago Ins. Co., 260 Or 285, 490 P2d 150 (1971)

Evidence of term’s special meaning within trade within which transaction arose is always admissible. May v. Chicago Ins. Co., 260 Or 285, 490 P2d 150 (1971)

The term “contract” in an exclusion clause of the insurance contract does not include obligations “implied at law.” Larson Constr. Co. v. Ore. Auto. Ins. Co., 450 F2d 1193 (1971)

Evidence of custom is not required to establish that technical meaning was intended by parties. Bernard v. First National Bank, 275 Or 145, 550 P2d 1203 (1976)

Court interprets terms of insurance policy according to what court perceives to be understanding of ordinary purchaser of insurance. Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or 765, 696 P2d 1082 (1985)

Term “any aircraft” used in insurance contract was to be given ordinary dictionary meaning and included hang gliders. Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or 765, 696 P2d 1082 (1985)

42.300

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where statement in instrument regarding consideration simply acknowledges receipt of payment, exclusion of parol evidence does not apply. Bremer v. Schroeder, 144 Or App 358, 927 P2d 144 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 28 WLR 223 (1992)