Summary of Luria Bros. & Co. v. Peilet Bros. Scrap Iron
U.S. Ct. of App. 
Relevant Facts: Pielet’s representative Bloom discussed an opportunity to deliver scrap metal to Luria Bros with their representative Fechheimer. In that discussion Bloom testified that he was doing business with fly-by-night people and he was worried whether or not he would get a shipment of scrap intended for Luria. The parties entered into a written agreement. The scrap was not delivered to Luria.. Trial court excluded evidence that the sales contract was expressly conditional upon Pielet obtaining the scrap at issue from a particular supplier.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the negotiation discussions between Bloom and Fechheimer contradicts or is inconsistent with the terms of the parties’ writings and thus excluded?
Court’s Holding: Yes, excluded.
Procedure: D. Ct found for Luria; Ct of App Affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be . . supplemented . .
b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.
Court Rationale: Where writings intended by the parties to be a final expression of their agreement call for an unconditional sale of goods, parol evidence that the seller’s obligations are conditioned upon receiving the goods from a particular supplier is inconsistent and must be excluded. Had their been some reference on the written confirmation indicating that oral agreements were meant to be incorporated into the writing, the result might have been different.
Plaintiff’s Argument: The writing of the parties was a final agreement to the terms, an unconditional sale of scrap metal at a set price.
Defendant’s Argument: [Pielet] The offered testimony at trial did not contradict the terms of the writings but supplemented the writings with consistent additional terms.