|
p0538 DEPUBLISHED Evidence that defendant induced plaintiff by false promises of permanent employment to leave his employment and relocate across the country with his family and then required plaintiff to sign an at-will employment agreement was not inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, because excluding it would permit defendant to retain a benefit it obtained by fraud.
BLITZ v FLUOR (Parol Evidence Fraud) 115 Cal.App.4th 185 [See: LabC 970; CCP 1856; Lazar v Superior Court 12 C4 631, T/AT 2/96; B of A v Pendergrass 4 C2 258; Tenzer v Superscope 39 C3 18; Casa Herrera v Beydoun 32 C4 336, T/AT 3/04]
|
|