Thomspon v. Libby Minnesota Supreme Court 1885 1) Facts a) Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant to sell Defendant logs. The parties put the contract in writing. b) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff made an oral warranty as to the quality of the logs. 2) History a) Trial court erred in admitting parole evidence of warranty 3) Issues a) Yes. Evidence of the warranty is inadmissible under the parole evidence rule. The parole evidence rule prevents the use of extrinsic evidence to speak where the writing is silent or vary where the writing speaks. b) The parole evidence rule applies when the written document is a complete integration. A complete integration is a written document intended to be the full expression of the agreement between the parties. c) The Court determined that the written contract for the sale of the logs was a complete integration. Because the oral warranty would add or vary terms in the written contract, evidence of the warranty is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. 4) Judgment: Reversed and remanded