Reference no: EM133576801

Question

Homeowner (Owner) owed Handyman $50 from prior work that Handyman performed. Owner and Handyman orally agreed that Handyman would clean Homeowners rain gutters, and, if Owner paid $100, that payment would cover both the price of gutter cleaning and the $50 previously owed. A day later, the parties signed a written agreement to clean the gutters. The $50 debt was not mentioned in the written agreement, which was one page in length and did not contain a merger clause. Handyman cleared the rain gutters, and Owner paid the $100. A week later, Handyman called Owner and demanded payment of the $50 previous debt. Owner said, "We agreed that the $50 would be covered when I paid you $100 for the rain gutter cleaning." Handyman said, "That is not what the written agreement said." Handyman brought a claim against Owner for the $50. Owner sought to introduce the oral agreement that payment of the $100 would cover both the rain gutter cleaning and the $50 debt. Will this evidence be admitted over a parol evidence rule objection by Handyman?