![]() |
Hello and Welcome from United States to the UNIX and Linux Forums! Thank You for Visiting and Joining Our Global Community.
|
|
google unix.com
|
|||||||
| Forums | Register | Forum Rules | Links | Albums | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| UNIX and Linux RSS News The latest news covering Solaris, RedHat, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, HP-UX, AIX, BSD, Apple OS X and more! |
More UNIX and Linux Forum Topics You Might Find Helpful
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Maciaszek Trial Testimony in SCO/Novell Contradicted | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 03-24-2009 04:15 AM |
| Event aims to bring Lindependence to one California town | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 07-15-2008 04:20 PM |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||||
|
Contracts - California law on witness testimony
When does California law allow a court to look at parol evidence in a contract dispute? That's a big part of what the parties argued about in appeals court in SCO v. Novell.
Novell claims the APA and amendments are clear within their four corners; SCO claims the documents are ambiguous, so it wants the court to let a jury consider external testimony from its witnesses. The applicable law is California law, so which of them is right? What is the law about this in California? I stumbled across a case that explains precisely that, Netbula v. Storage Tech. Corp. [PDF], 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12182 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008). While we await the decision of the appeals court, the court in this prior case can help us understand what the judges are being guided by. More... |
| Sponsored Links | ||
|
|