.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
thewheel12
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:27 pm

.

Postby thewheel12 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:42 pm

.
Last edited by thewheel12 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thewheel12
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby thewheel12 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:01 pm

bump

stargazin
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby stargazin » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:24 pm

Contracts is my worst subject sadly, but I'll take a stab. I think if you don't want the napkin agreement to be enforced, then yes you would want to bring in extrinsic evidence to show that it's not integrated (and therefore you can contradict or supplement it).

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby Nova » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:25 pm

thewheel12 wrote:Say I sit down at a coffee shop and talk some things over with a potential customer. We write some stuff on a napkin that appears to be an agreement.

Then, we go home and exchange emails ending with me sending over a work order that sneaks in a borderline unconcscionable term.

Do I apply the PE rule to determine if that napkin meant anything? It controls the flow of evidence related to prior written and oral agreements and contemporaneous oral agreements, correct?

Did you just make that up?

There is really not enough information here to tell.

There is not enough information to tell if the emails are a final or complete agreement. Assuming it is not complete, there is not enough information to tell if the napkin terms are an attempt to change or add terms.

PER only applies when trying to admit evidence to add or change a term to a final or complete agreement.

PER says you cant show evidence to add or change term of a complete agreement, and you cant show evidence to change a term of a final agreement. You can ONLY show evidence to add a term to a final agreement.

HTH
Last edited by Nova on Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

thewheel12
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby thewheel12 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:48 pm

I didn't make it up, but I did leave out all the facts that would help a reader determine whether or not the writing was intended to be final or complete. Your response helped me think through it though, so thanks a lot for the reply. Let's hope I can apply it on the exam :|

ArmyOfficer
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby ArmyOfficer » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:42 am

Email could also be regarded as a confirmation under UCC.

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: Parol Evidence CHALLENGE

Postby Kage3212 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:00 am

It is also key here to watch how you are wording things:

Remember, if the Parol Evidence Rule applies....then nothing is getting in...it has been determined that the document is fully integrated and no consistent or additional terms are coming in (remember to that this is an evidence rule that is brought up during hearings)

If the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply....its probably because the judge determined the the final embodiment of the document was partially integrated and therefore consistent terms can be added to the agreement (no contradictory terms).

To spin your head a little bit....our professor left us with this masterpiece during our review lecture..."Every addition is a contradiction and every contradiction is an addition"

Another issue from your hypo might be whether the email is a "writing" which triggers the PER discussion. We only did CL stuff in our class, so I am not sure exactly how the UCC determines writings in relation to PER.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests