Parol Evidence Rule Case Study

The parol evidence rule states that, if once the terms of an agreement between two parties is written down, the parties may not present any evidence in court that contradicts what is written in the agreement. The parol evidence can be thought of as the “four corners” rule. If an agreement exists, the court must look for evidence of the agreement terms by reading what is inside the “four corners” of the paper the agreement is printed on. Evidence that does not appear within the “four corners” of the agreement, such as comments made by the plaintiff or the defendant who are now facing off in a breach of contract case, cannot be considered if they contradict what is inside the agreement’s “four corners”. Merger clauses function to strengthen
It is a legislative enactment, in part, of the parol evidence rule. Itis not an evidentiary or interpretive rule, but rather one of substantive law. Even after the integrated agreement has been proved and the prior agreement has been shown to be inconsistent therewith, one can still escape the provisions of the writing by taking the defence of fraud, duress, misrepresentation, mistake, and unconscionability. In New York, the existence of a merger clause appears to have little effect on a court's willingness to admit parol evidence to clarify an ambiguity. With or without a merger clause, the parol evidence rule generally will allow the introduction of oral or extrinsic evidence to clarify an ambiguity in a contract . The mere absence of a merger clause alone, however, may not justify the relaxation of the parol evidence rule . The party seeking to admit parol evidence still must demonstrate that there is ambiguity in the contract at issue before parol evidence can be admitted
In India, section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about parol evidence. Section 91 and 92 often must be read together. It states that, when a transaction has been finalised in writing, the writing becomes the exclusive memorial and no evidence shall be given to prove the transaction, except the document itself or secondary evidence of admissible nature. There are six exceptions to section 92. These exceptions are similar to the exceptions to the parol evidence rule in the American and the British