Need CivPro & Contracts Advice Forum

[b32]

Hey guys,

I'm a 1L and I am struggling a lot in CivPro and in contracts, I am struggling to understanding material regarding interpretation and parol evidence for contracts and almost everything past pleadings in CivPro. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions or tips on how to study this material better or supplements they would suggest to help me out. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks guys!

[Zindras]

E&Es. Blum and Glannon.

[zeth006]

Emanuel does a decent job of explaining my contracts class material/concepts, though I hear people on TLS recommending Blum too. Caveat is it CAN be a bit too detailed for your preferences.

For Parol Evidence, the gist I'm getting so far is that the courts tend to be rather arbitrary in terms of whether evidence can be admitted at certain stages. Corbin and Williston both seem to agree you can't admit parol evidence if it CONTRADICTS the contract. But there's disagreement (at least from what I read) as to when it's allowed to be admitted to supplement the terms.


Oh, and the E&E for Civ Pro is worth its weight in gold. Read the casebook explanations on the basic concepts, then read the E&E. My casebook when it comes to explaining stuff is a load of crap.

[Zindras]

With the parol evidence rule, one cannot introduce extrinsic evidence to supplement the writing if the writing is a complete integration or if the term the party seeks to introduce is inconsistent with the contract. The common law, and thus the restatement, is more stringent than the UCC.

I believe interpretation has to do with the "four corners approach" versus Traynor's contextual approach. Some courts will not allow extrinsic evidence to explain the contract if the writing is clear, complete, and unambiguous. Other courts are more liberal, and will allow evidence as long as a term in the contract is reasonably suceptible to the party's interpretation. The UCC approach is particularly liberal on interpreting terms based on course of performance, course of dealing, and usage of trade.

I hope that's about right, I don't have my outline in front of me. If not, someone let me know and I'll edit out the (mis)information.

[the lantern]

Yea the E&E for Civ Pro is awesome. Our Civ Pro prof has never taught 1 semester CivPro before, so I'm pretty much learning completely from the E&E because she is really struggling to handle all the material in one semester, though we will be expected to know it.

For contracts, I would suggest talking to your prof or any of the respected Hornbooks. I think the one I'm using is Calamari and Perillo on Contracts. Personally, I don't think parol evidence is that difficult to understand. Generally, parol evidence may not be used to modify or supplement a completely integrated agreement. It only becomes weird when you are looking at conditions. Today we went over a case where parol evidence was used to add a condition precedent to the contract. The only times you would be permitted to use parol evidence to modfiy or supplement is in situations of fraud, duress, or conditions upon which the contract depends (condition precedent). Many times, however, parties agree to an anti-waiver clause to bar each other from using parol evidence to introduce these conditions precedent to the contract (though it is not clear whether courts will allow these sorts of waivers in all cases).

Hope that helps at least a little.

[zeth006]

Any fellow Hastings people here?

Feel like some of us are reading the exact same cases right now.