Group # N/A*
* did as individual
Business 4000-003
Group Assignment #1 (King v. OETIM)
1. Why did King bring an action against OETIM? (1 mark)
King brought an action against the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Manitoba (OETIM) because there was a misunderstanding/disagreement between the two parties on whether or not King’s compensation for teaching at OETIM was pre-tax (“gross”) or post-tax (“net”). King believed his income was post-tax and did not claim it as income and was therefore penalized by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
2. Briefly explain the parol evidence rule. (1 mark)
The parol evidence rule puts restrictions on the evidence outside of the contract in question (“extrinsic evidence”) that can be used during a trial when …show more content…
c) If there had been an entire agreement clause in the written contract in this case, do you think King have been successful? Briefly state why or why not. (1 mark)
No I do not think King would have been successful because the extrinsic evidence from Milne-Watts and the other equipment operators would then not be considered in court. If there was an entire agreement clause stating that information about the contract can only be found within the contract, the extrinsic evidence used by King would be outside of the factual matrix and would not count. Since the judge decided that the contract was not ambiguous, the exception would not be considered in this case.
6. Of the types of evidence listed by the Court as forming part of the factual matrix of a contract, under which type of evidence did parol evidence in this case fall? (1 mark)
Within the factual matrix the parol evidence of this case falls under the “nature or custom of the market or industry in which the contract was executed”. Therefore, in this case
* did as individual
Business 4000-003
Group Assignment #1 (King v. OETIM)
1. Why did King bring an action against OETIM? (1 mark)
King brought an action against the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Manitoba (OETIM) because there was a misunderstanding/disagreement between the two parties on whether or not King’s compensation for teaching at OETIM was pre-tax (“gross”) or post-tax (“net”). King believed his income was post-tax and did not claim it as income and was therefore penalized by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
2. Briefly explain the parol evidence rule. (1 mark)
The parol evidence rule puts restrictions on the evidence outside of the contract in question (“extrinsic evidence”) that can be used during a trial when …show more content…
c) If there had been an entire agreement clause in the written contract in this case, do you think King have been successful? Briefly state why or why not. (1 mark)
No I do not think King would have been successful because the extrinsic evidence from Milne-Watts and the other equipment operators would then not be considered in court. If there was an entire agreement clause stating that information about the contract can only be found within the contract, the extrinsic evidence used by King would be outside of the factual matrix and would not count. Since the judge decided that the contract was not ambiguous, the exception would not be considered in this case.
6. Of the types of evidence listed by the Court as forming part of the factual matrix of a contract, under which type of evidence did parol evidence in this case fall? (1 mark)
Within the factual matrix the parol evidence of this case falls under the “nature or custom of the market or industry in which the contract was executed”. Therefore, in this case