The IT Law Wiki

Citation[]

Security Leasing Co. v. Flinco, lnc., 23 Utah.2d 242, 461 P.2d 460 (1969) (full-text).

Factual Background[]

The plaintiff supplied a computer under a five-year lease agreement containing an integration clause. Flinco sought to return the equipment, claiming that because of incomplete computer programming the computer could not be used.

Trial Court Proceedings[]

Since the written contract did not disclose who was to do the programming, the court held that parol evidence was admissible to determine that responsibility.[1] By reviewing the parol evidence, the court determined that the programming was to be done by Security Leasing and sustained Flinco's rejection of the computer system.[2]

References[]

  1. 23 Utah.2d at 244, 461 P.2d at 461-62.
  2. Id. at 245, 461 P.2d at 462.