Parol Evidence Rule

Nowadays contracts are the best way of making agreements. As said in Parker and Box, a contract may be defined as ‘’an agreement which the law will enforce’’1. It is clearly shown that contracts are much more than agreements as they are enforced by courts. They generally involve two or more parties and for a contract to exist, agreement is essential. If there is no agreement or ‘’meeting of the minds’’ of the parties, then it is considered that there is no contract. To see whether an agreement exists or not, the court usually sees if an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other. If it happens that there is a mistake in the subject matter, price agreed or that one party has been forced upon, the court will certify that no contract exists. However, some people can try to breach contracts by altering afterwards what they stated in the contract. If the contract is in writing, an important rule called the parol evidence rule exists. This rule states that if the contract is entirely in writing, no other evidence which would add to, alter or contradict the contract is accepted. This essay will deal with analyzing the application of parol evidence rule and whether Australian courts should or should not provide remedies for breach of contract where the promise concerned was not included in the written contract. The rationale of the parol evidence rule is that the existence of this rule is justified. If the parties took the trouble to make a contract then it is assumed that the contract contains everything and whatever else apart from what is stated in it is not to be taken into consideration. But if we are allowed to alter things, then what was the use of having a written contract at all? They could have a simple agreement without having to write down everything and give it so much importance. The case of Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd (1988) VR 39 demonstrates clearly why the parol evidence rule exists. Buckenara a professional player