The respondent overpaid the appellants for construction work.
The parties agreed to the overpayment and the appellants issued a $150,000 cheque with a request not to cash it.
Subsequently, a demand promissory note was executed for the same amount with an irrevocable direction to a law firm to pay from proceeds of other properties.
When the appellants failed to pay after demand, the respondent brought an application for payment which was granted.
On appeal, the appellants argued that an oral agreement modified the written promissory note.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the parol evidence rule and confirming that the written agreement prevails.
