Question

The Parol Evidence Rule generally prevents Leroy from introducing evidence in court of oral agreements which conflict with the terms in the valid written contract he has with Martavious.

Group of answer choices

True

False

Answer 1

One of the most essential common law rules on contract cases is the parol evidence rule. Parol Evidence Rule is a rule that has an extraneous evidence which is a verbal or written agreement that is not included in a significant black and white document. Besides that, it also preserves the reliability of written agreements by providing partiesfrom trying to amend the meaning of the written document through the use of previous and concurrent verbal or written proclaimed that are not quoted in the document. Hence, the court will not accept any verbal evidence which would add or oppose the terms of the written document if the contract is entirely in writing. As in case Henderson v Arthur, the defendant's disagreement was that he had tendered such a bill of exchange in payment of the rent sued for, that the plaintiff had wrongfully refused to take it and that , as consequence , the plaintiff had no cause of action. The plaintiff argued

that evidence of the antecedent agreement was not permitted. The justification to this rule is to avoid fraud. The purpose of this essay is to justify Parol Evidence Rule and converse on how collateral contract is used in proceedinhere are several exceptions emerged due to the rigidity of the Parol Evidence Rule. The first exception is proving that the written agreement is not the whole contract. The spokenevidence of other verbal term might be allowed if agreement which is written does not have all of the conditions approved by the parties. Most people try to escape from this rule whereby it is consists partly two components in the contract which is written and spoken. For example, Chappell, the purchaser has asked Van Den Esshert, the render for an assurance that the house was termites' infestation free prior to signing the contract. The vendor then replied affirmatively and confirmed that the dwelling was free from infestation. Therefore, the purchaser signed that the agreement and brought over the house. Ms Chappell soon found out that the dwelling she bought was termites infested and decided to bring action against the vendor for the eradication cost and cost of repairing the house. Van Den Esshert then appealed to defence

Ans. FALSE