Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (180)

The parol evidence rule prohibits admissibility of extrinsic evidence that seeks to vary, contradict, or add to an integration. Other forms of extrinsic evidence may be admitted when they will not bring about this result, i.e., they will fall outside the scope of the parol evidence rule.

When a party asserts that there was an oral agreement that the written contract would not become effective until a condition occurred, all evidence of the understanding may be offered and received. This would be a condition precedent to effectiveness. The rationale is that one is not altering a written agreement by means of parol evidence if the written agreement never came into being.

It should be borne in mind that parol evidence of such a condition precedent will not be admitted IF IT CONTRADICTS the EXPRESS language of the WRITTEN contract.

Parol evidence is inadmissible as to conditions subsequent to the formation of the contract, i.e., an oral agreement that the party would not be obliged to perform upon the happening of an event. This latter type of condition limits or modifies a duty under an existing or formed contract.

Under the parol evidence rule, when the parties to a contract express their agreement in a writing with the intent that it embody the final expression of their bargain (i.e., the writing is an integration), any other expressions, written or oral, made PRIOR to the writing, as well as any oral expressions CONTEMPORANEOUS with the writing, are INADMISSIBLE to VARY the terms of the writing.