• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/11

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

11 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Contradictions or supplementations
when parties to a contract have mutually agreed to incorporate a final version of their entire agreement in a writing, neither party can contradict or supplement a written agreement with extrinsic evidence of prior agreements or negotiations.
Purpose of the rule
to prevent parties from “squirming” out of the written word of a contract with testimony later that changes it as agreed upon
When you cannot introduce parol evidence
when the contract is complete and the terms unambiguous (some states) or where nothing needs to be supplemented
Merger Clause
some states allow for a merger clause to state that this contract IS THE FINAL AGREEMENT.
Complete integration
a writing that is intended to be a final and exclusive expression of the agreement of parties
Partial integration
a writing inteded to be final, but not complete because it deals with some but not all aspects of a transaction between the parties
When parol evidence rule does not apply
Agreements made after the integrated writing
(Parol evidence allowed)
"oral conditions precedent
evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, incapacity, mistake or illegality
evidence offered to explain meaning of agreement
evidence of a “collateral” agreement"
prior performance (course of performance)
"Courts will sometimes look at how an actor behaved in prior dealings with a client or buyer. "
Legal effect of partial integration
When the writing is intended to be final only with respect to a part of their agreement, the writing may not be contradicted, but it may be supplemented by such extrinsic evidence
4 Corners Approach
1. Presence of a merger clause indicates intention for agreement to be integrated
2. Permitting extrinsic evidence to determine integration is to do exactly what the parol evidence rule is designed to prevent
3. Court should presume that the writing was intended to be a complete agreement, and should admit evidence of consistent additional terms only if there is substantial evidence that the parties did not intend the writing to embody the entire agreement