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]