S.E.2d 735 (1971); Kanawha Banking and Trust Co. v. Gilbert, 131 W.Va. 88, 46 S.E.2d 225 (1947).
12. In this case, Defendant claims that he understood from oral discussions occurring contemporaneously with the execution of the Recruitment Agreement that Plaintiff intended to exempt his Beckley income from the calculation of “Cash Collections” and that a written addendum would follow setting forth this understanding.
13. However, the Court hereby concludes that no parol evidence of any such alleged oral discussions can be admitted to contradict, add to, detract from, vary or explain the terms of the Recruitment Agreement between the parties.
14. In addition, the Recruitment Agreement contained the following provision:
This [Recruitment] Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no amendment, alteration or modification of this [Recruitment] Agreement, whether in written or verbal form, shall be valid unless in each instance such amendment, alteration or modification is (a) expressed in a written instrument duly executed in the name of the Party of Parties making such amendment, alteration or modification and (b) reviewed and approved in …show more content…
However, the cases cited by Defendant are distinguishable here, where Defendant has admitted that the conversations that form the basis of his alleged modification to the Recruitment Agreement occurred prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the Recruitment Agreement. See Conclusions of Law, ¶¶ 10-12, supra. Moreover, the contents of the July 30, 2012 Interoffice Memorandum do not mention or refer to the definition of “Cash Collections” under the Recruitment Agreement and do not in any way purport to address the issue about whether Defendant’s Beckley income would be excluded under such definition. Thus, language of the July 30, 2012 Interoffice Memorandum itself cannot be a subsequent agreement related to the definition of Cash
12. In this case, Defendant claims that he understood from oral discussions occurring contemporaneously with the execution of the Recruitment Agreement that Plaintiff intended to exempt his Beckley income from the calculation of “Cash Collections” and that a written addendum would follow setting forth this understanding.
13. However, the Court hereby concludes that no parol evidence of any such alleged oral discussions can be admitted to contradict, add to, detract from, vary or explain the terms of the Recruitment Agreement between the parties.
14. In addition, the Recruitment Agreement contained the following provision:
This [Recruitment] Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no amendment, alteration or modification of this [Recruitment] Agreement, whether in written or verbal form, shall be valid unless in each instance such amendment, alteration or modification is (a) expressed in a written instrument duly executed in the name of the Party of Parties making such amendment, alteration or modification and (b) reviewed and approved in …show more content…
However, the cases cited by Defendant are distinguishable here, where Defendant has admitted that the conversations that form the basis of his alleged modification to the Recruitment Agreement occurred prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the Recruitment Agreement. See Conclusions of Law, ¶¶ 10-12, supra. Moreover, the contents of the July 30, 2012 Interoffice Memorandum do not mention or refer to the definition of “Cash Collections” under the Recruitment Agreement and do not in any way purport to address the issue about whether Defendant’s Beckley income would be excluded under such definition. Thus, language of the July 30, 2012 Interoffice Memorandum itself cannot be a subsequent agreement related to the definition of Cash