Module 9 Flashcards
What is the definition of rely in promissory estoppel?
There must be a cost to the promisee of doing something in reliance on the promise
What is the primary reason that promises without consideration are enforced?
The premises have relied on the promises
What is the parol evidence rule?
Bars evidence of communications, written or oral, extrinsic to the final writing.
What do critics say about the parole evidence rule ?
Difficult to understand and unworkable
What are the two questions that should be asked when considering the parol evidence rule?
- Is the contract integrated/does it contain the entire understanding of the parties
- If so, is the integration total or partial
- How is the meaning of the terms of the contract to be ascertained
- What is the interpretation of 1/more terms of the contract
How does a final agreement affect tentative terms discussed earlier negotiations?
Earlier tentative agreements and negotiations are in operative in determining the content of the contract. The final agreement supersedes them
What is total integration?
When I contract is final and complete. Cannot be contradicted by parol evidence and can’t be supplanted by consistent additional terms
What is a partial integration?
When the writing is final, but doesn’t completely express the parties’ contract. Cannot be contradicted by parol evidence, but may be supplanted by consistent additional terms
How does the parol evidence rule affect extrinsic evidence of terms that were agreed upon prior to or at the same time as a total integration?
Parol evidence bars those terms regardless of whether they were written or oral
How does parol evidence deal with contemporaneous agreements?
A) majority: they should be treated like prior agreements that should be deemed to be a part of the integration and admissible into evidence
What is a typical example of a parol evidence problem?
One of the parties offers into evidence a term that is not in the writing but which the party says was orally agreed to prior to or contemporaneously with the writing
What is the reason for the parol evidence rule?
To stop at perjured testimony and uncertain testimony of slippery memory
The basic idea of the parol evidence rule is if the term didn’t survive the writing, what….?
It wasn’t intended to
What is the theory of merger?
The offer term is excluded because it has been superseded by the writing
Parole evidence rule is designed to make parties but the complete agreement, including contemporaneous oral agreements, in writing at the risk of what?
Losing anything they had agreed on
Questions of intent with regard to parol evidence are usually for whom?
Courts of transmuted this question into one of law and it is decided by the trial judge and then subject to appellate review
If the court decides that oral evidence rule has been violated, what will happen to the argued term?
It will be excluded, not because it was not agreed on, but because it is legally immaterial. The term is admitted into evidence and the jury determines it if it was actually agreed on
Can the parole evidence rule be raised for the first time on appeal?
Yes because it is a substantive rule it can be raised for the first time on appeal despite the failure to object
If a writing appears to evidence a contract that is not a final embodiment of the contract or some of its terms, does parole evidence apply?
No
When is a confirmation an integration?
When it is prepared by only one party, and sent to another party, and that party makes no response to it prior to performance
What are the rules for a final writing?
It doesn’t have to be written any particular way or even signed. It just has to have been regarded by the parties as the final embodiment of their agreement. The more complete and formal it is the more likely it was intended to be final
What are the tests used to determine total integration?
- four corners rule
- collateral contract concept
- Williston’s rules
- Corbins approach
- UCC
What is the four corners rule?
Determines the existence of a total integration by concentrating on the words of the writing. If it appears complete on its face is presumed to be total, and this is decided by the judge looking solely at the writing.
*** critics think it is illogical and impossible just by looking at writing
What is the collateral contract concept?
Determines existence of a total integration by concentrate in the words of the writing
- does not prevent collateral agreement/independent writings from being introduced as long as the main agreement isn’t contradicted
- A separate oral agreement about anything the contract is silent about that isn’t inconsistent with the terms can be proven by parol
- ** criticism: using this test no writing is considered more than a partial integration
What is Williston’s rules? (A.k.a. majority approach/restatement)
The existence of the total integration depends on the intention of the parties
- if the writing has a merger clause in total integration is established
- A contemporaneous written agreement becomes part of the integration
- a oral agreement is subject to parole evidence rule
- look at the writing, if it is obviously incomplete, consistent additional terms can be introduced
- The court decides what reasonable parties similarly situated would naturally do with respect to the term
- ** criticism: difficult to apply
What are the two ways Williston rule can be rebutted?
A) if the document is obviously incomplete
B) the merger clause was a mistake or any other sufficient reason to set aside the contract
What Does Williston’s rule mean when it talks about intent?
Presumed/fictitious intent
What is Corbins approach?
Parol evidence rule doesn’t apply to any kind of contemporaneous agreement. Terms are either prior to or subsequent to the writing and the existence of a total integration depends on the intention of the parties
- searches out the actual intent of prior agreements and the court makes decisions on whether the parties actually agreed or intended for it to be total
- ** critics say this is misguided
What is the UCC rule about parole evidence?
Terms that confirmatory memoranda agree are intended as final expressions cannot be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of the contemporaneous oral agreement but can be explained/supplanted:
A) the course of dealing, usage of trade, or course of performance
B) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the writing was intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of terms
- The actual intentions of the parties should be found out
What does the UCC say about course of dealing?
Can be used to supply any additional terms even if the writing is thought to be total
Under the UCC parole evidence rule can a total integration be contradicted or supplemented?
No
What does the CISG say about the parol evidence rule?
A contract of sale doesn’t have to be in writing and is not subject to any other requirement of form. It can be proved by any means, including witnesses
What does the restatement say about the parol evidence rule?
Even if the evidence shows it is a total integration, additional terms are still admissible if:
- The new agreement is made for a separate consideration, or
- The new agreement isn’t within the scope of the integrated writing, or
- The new term might naturally be omitted from the writing
What is a merger clause?
The writing is a final, complete, and exclusive statement of all the terms agreed.
A merger clause will usually resolve the issue of total integration, with two exceptions, making the merger clause alone avoidable:
- Where the instrument is obviously incomplete, or
- The merger clause was included as a result of fraud, mistake, any reason that is sufficient to set aside a contract
* ** some courts no say that a merger cause should only be one of the factors considered in determining total integration and he shouldn’t have any effect unless it is agreed on
If the writing appears to be a contract was never formed what can be used to show this?
Parol evidence
Parol evidence is admissible to show that an agreement is what?
Void, voidable, has no grounds for granting, denying Reformation, specific performance, duress, or other remedy
If the party testifies that an agreement wasn’t meant to be operative, saying it was sham or nonfinal, how does that affect the contract?
There was no contract
What does it mean if the contract is subject to an express condition?
The parties agree that a condition precedent must occur before the contract is effective, and the failure of that condition to occur maybe shown despite a writing or other record because of the absence of finality