Parol Evidence

Question 1

Parol Evidence General Rule

Answer 1

1) Courts generally may not consider earlier agreements as a source of terms that are inconsistent with the terms in the written contract
2) A court may consider evidence of such terms for the limited purpose of determining whether there was a mistake in integration

Question 2

Parol Evidence: establishing a defense

Answer 2

1) parol evidence rule doesn’t prevent a court from looking at earlier words of the parties for the limited purpose of determining whether there is a defense to the agreement
2) examples: duress, misrepresentation, fraud

Question 3

Parol Evidence: ambiguities

Answer 3

earlier agreements can be considered to resolve limited ambiguities in the written contract

Question 4

Parol Evidence: adding to the written deal

Answer 4

1) a court cannot consider earlier agreements as a source of consistent, additional, terms
2) unless the written agreement was only a partial integration