Issues
The court had to decide on several issues as listed below: * Whether the oral assurance provided by the sales representative should be permitted as evidence in the case or not. The oral assurance on the productivity of the seed contradicted the written clause in the purchase order, and under the parol evidence rule, such contradictory evidence creates a strong presumption in favour of the written terms (Weir, 2010, p. 189). * Whether the written clause in the purchase order supersedes the oral assurance (if permitted as evidence) given by the sales representative for the productiveness of the buckwheat seed. * Given the decisions above, whether the company is responsible for the loss of the crop or not.
Reason for the Decision
The court ruled in favour of farmers and found the company to be liable for the loss of profits relating to the failed crop. The court`s decision was on the basis of the following reasons, which when considered together resulted in a stronger case in favour of the farmers. * Although the parol evidence rule favours written terms over oral evidence, in this particular case, the written term was included on a standard form contract, thereby making the written clause weaker or less favourable (Weir, 2010, p. 189). * The court also had evidence from several farmers who had been provided with oral assurance from the sales representative that buckwheat seed would smother weeds. Therefore, the word of several farmers indicated that the oral assurance had been clearly established and provided more support in favour of the farmers.
Impacts on businesses: * Product Marketing: Businesses should not make guaranties or promises to customers (oral or written) that cannot be substantiated or fulfilled. For example, companies should not market or advertise their products or services with unsupported statements or claims