Hilaly v. Allen, No. JAD19-05 (S.F. Super. App. Div. May 21, 2019)
Evidence Code § 622 creates a conclusive presumption regarding the truth of recitations of fact in a “written instrument.” “Instrument” is not defined, but “[a]s used in section 622, an ‘instrument’ usually refers to a contract, but may apply to contract-like writings, such as a commercial estoppel certificate that all parties understand is ‘a binding confirmation of a lease agreement.’” The informal tenant questionnaire at issue in this case, however, is not an instrument. It was neither supported by consideration nor the subject of mutual consent.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label allen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label allen. Show all posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...