WILSON V BROBBEY (1973) JELR 63955 (HC)
The defendant-appellant signed an invoice for credited goods from the plaintiff-respondent. The appeal arose following a judgement delivered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by the District Magistrate in an action by the plaintiff-respondent to claim the sum of ¢231.00 which was the value of store goods credited by the defendant-appellant from the plaintiff-respondent. Although the defendant-appellant was literate, he argued he had not read the document and that he only signed the invoice as a guarantor on behalf of another party (Herein party X) and not as the purchaser. He also sought to join party X as a co-defender.
At the trial court, the trial magistrate found that the invoice, exhibit A, spoke for itself in that the defendant signed it as a purchaser and not as a guarantor. He gave judgement in favour of the plaintiff based on the “oral testimony coupled with exhibit A.”
1. Whether or not the defendant-appellant could lead parole evidence to contract the terms of the invoice.
1. That the defendant-appellant could not lead parole evidence to contradict the terms of the contract.
That when the terms of the contract are contained in a written document, extrinsic evidence would not be admitted to add, vary, contradict, or subtract from the terms of that written document.