Explore tens of thousands of sets crafted by our community.
The Parol Evidence Rule
20
Flashcards
0/20
A contract to sell a house mentions nothing about the inclusion of appliances, but the buyer claims the seller verbally agreed to include a refrigerator.
The Parol Evidence Rule likely applies, preventing the buyer from using the alleged verbal agreement as evidence since the written contract is silent about appliances.
A written contract for car sale specifies a warranty period, but the buyer asserts that the seller verbally promised an extended warranty beyond the written terms.
The Parol Evidence Rule may apply, barring evidence of the verbal promise if the written contract was intended to be a complete agreement regarding warranty terms.
After signing a detailed service contract, the client claims the service provider made a verbal commitment to complete additional tasks not outlined in the written agreement.
The Parol Evidence Rule likely applies, preventing the use of the verbal claim to impose additional obligations not specified in the comprehensive written contract.
A buyer and seller enter into a written contract for goods, later the seller wishes to introduce prior negotiations that show different pricing terms.
The Parol Evidence Rule prevents the introduction of prior negotiations that contradict the final, written agreement's express terms.
A contract for professional services includes a non-compete clause, but one party wants to use early draft provisions that allowed for certain exceptions.
The Parol Evidence Rule applies, prohibiting the introduction of draft provisions that differ from the final contract's non-compete clause.
A written lease agreement states that no pets are allowed, but the tenant claims the landlord verbally agreed to allow pets.
The Parol Evidence Rule applies and prevents the tenant from using the landlord's alleged verbal agreement as it directly contradicts the written no pets clause.
An employment contract omits any mention of sick leave, but the employee claims there was a pre-contractual verbal agreement granting sick leave.
The Parol Evidence Rule likely applies, disallowing the verbal agreement to affect the written contract unless it can be shown that the sick leave agreement was intended to be a separate agreement.
A sales contract expressly forbids assignment to third parties, but one party attempts to introduce a prior unsigned agreement allowing for assignment.
The Parol Evidence Rule applies, because evidence of the prior, contradictory unsigned agreement cannot override the explicit no-assignment clause in the finalized contract.
A technology licensing agreement outlines specific usage rights, but the licensee seeks to bring in evidence of a previous verbal agreement expanding those rights.
The Parol Evidence Rule likely applies, excluding the prior verbal agreement, unless it can be shown that the verbal agreement was a separate contract not meant to be included in the written agreement.
A written agreement for software development contains a detailed milestone schedule, but the developer alleges a later oral modification altering the deadlines.
While the Parol Evidence Rule would ordinarily preclude the oral modification, it might not apply if the modification occurred after the execution of the contract and all parties agreed to it.
In written agreements, a no-oral-modification clause exists, but one party insists there was a subsequent oral agreement changing the payment terms.
The Parol Evidence Rule typically precludes later oral modifications contrary to a no-oral-modification clause, but this modification might be enforceable if it is supported by new consideration and can be proven.
A written partnership agreement outlines profit distribution, yet one partner later contends there was an oral agreement for a different distribution method.
The Parol Evidence Rule would prevent introducing oral evidence about profit distribution if the partnership agreement is clear and fully integrated, unless there's an exception due to some sort of inconsistency or ambiguity in the agreement.
A contract for consulting services has a specific termination clause, but one party claims a prior agreement specified a different termination process.
The Parol Evidence Rule would apply to exclude the prior agreement from modifying the written contract's termination clause, unless there is proof that the prior agreement was a separate collateral contract.
A written purchase agreement for equipment fails to mention any maintenance services, but the buyer mentions a prior oral agreement covered these services.
If the written purchase agreement was intended as a complete and exclusive statement, the Parol Evidence Rule may bar the oral agreement unless it is determined to be a collateral agreement that does not contradict the main contract.
The written contract for a business merger is silent about employee retention, but a party alleges there were oral guarantees regarding staff jobs.
The Parol Evidence Rule may prevent introducing oral guarantees if the court finds the written contract was intended as a complete and exclusive statement of terms, unless the oral agreement is found to be a collateral matter.
The purchasers of a business want to enforce an oral agreement that allegedly reduces the sale price after uncovering a written contract with a higher price.
The Parol Evidence Rule would generally prevent enforcement of the oral agreement since it directly contradicts the sale price outlined in the written contract.
A real estate contract contains a clause regarding property condition, but the buyer claims the seller made earlier oral representations that the property was in a superior condition.
The Parol Evidence Rule applies, prohibiting the use of earlier oral representations to contradict the written terms unless the buyer can demonstrate the representations were fraudulent.
After closing a commercial property sale, the buyer seeks to introduce prior conversations where the seller allegedly provided guarantees against certain zoning changes.
The Parol Evidence Rule would typically apply to exclude such prior conversations if the written contract was fully integrated and silent on the issue of zoning change guarantees.
A sale contract does not specify the delivery dates, but the seller argues there was a customary practice between the parties establishing these dates.
The Parol Evidence Rule might not apply if the customary practice can be proven and it doesn't contradict the contract; such practices may be used to interpret ambiguous terms in an integrated contract.
During a dispute over a construction contract, one party wants to introduce emails exchanged during negotiations that suggest different performance deadlines.
The Parol Evidence Rule will preclude the emails if the written contract specifies performance deadlines and is considered integrated and the final expression of the parties' agreement.
© Hypatia.Tech. 2024 All rights reserved.
