## Facts

- Dennison purchased a tract of land in King County, Washington, under an executory real estate contract with the Hardens for $12,000.
- The written contract described the land by metes and bounds and stated that the purchase price included “property and fruit trees” and certain farm items and crops, but did not specify tree variety or quality.
- During negotiations, Dennison alleged the Hardens stated the commercial orchard contained 276 “Pacific Gold” peach trees and provided nursery documents supporting that representation.
- Dennison later claimed the trees were not Pacific Gold and were of inferior quality, and sued for breach of express warranty.
- Dennison disclaimed fraud and proceeded only on a warranty theory.
- The trial court received some oral and documentary evidence of the alleged warranty but later struck it as barred by the parol evidence rule and entered judgment for the Hardens.

## Issues

1. Whether a collateral, contemporaneous oral warranty about the variety or quality of orchard trees is admissible to supplement a written real estate contract that includes “fruit trees” but does not specify type or quality.
2. Whether the term “fruit trees” creates a patent ambiguity permitting parol evidence to explain it as referring to a particular variety or commercial quality.
3. Whether standing fruit trees in a commercial orchard are treated as part of the realty such that no implied warranty of quality arises in the sale.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Hardens.
- The court held the written contract was a complete integration covering the subject matter, so parol evidence of an oral warranty regarding tree variety or quality was inadmissible absent fraud or mutual mistake.
- The court held “fruit trees” was not a patent ambiguity permitting parol evidence to specify variety or quality.
- The court held standing orchard trees are part of the land (not personal property, except for nursery stock grown for sale and transplantation), and no implied warranty of quality applies in the sale of real estate.
- Because the parol evidence rule is substantive, barred testimony could be stricken or disregarded even if initially admitted without objection.

## Legal Principles

- When a written contract appears complete and covers the entire transaction, parol evidence may not add collateral, contemporaneous warranties on the same subject matter absent fraud or mutual mistake.
- The parol evidence rule operates as substantive law; inadmissible parol terms do not become effective merely because evidence was admitted without objection.
- A general contractual reference to “fruit trees” in a real estate contract is not, by itself, a patent ambiguity allowing parol evidence to specify a particular variety or commercial quality.
- Standing trees in an established orchard are part of the realty unless they are nursery stock grown for sale and transplantation.
- There is no implied warranty in the sale of real property; implied-warranty concepts associated with sales of goods do not apply to the quality of standing orchard trees conveyed with land.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the integrated written real estate contract as written, rejecting alleged oral warranties about the orchard’s tree variety or quality and holding that, because the trees were part of the realty, no implied warranty of quality could be implied in the sale.


Dennison v. Harden, 186 P.2d 908 (Wash. 1947)