Top Law Schools

I've searched around but I have not been able to find the answer to my questions on the parol evidence rule. As a heads up, my contracts professor teaches heavily from the Restatement and UCC. For the PAR, he said it is a three step process: 1) is there partial or complete integration? 2) apply the PRE 3) Interpret. As a general rule, he said we must ask ourselves whether the parties would have naturally included the terms in the contract. So far it all makes sense to me, but here is where I have my two questions.

1. He has also talked about the CA and NY standards when it comes to determining whether there is integration. The CA standard compares the K with the extrinsic evidence and the NY standard just looks at the four corners. Is it right to use these tests with the integration or is this more interpretation?

2. Does the third step in the test, interpration and ambiguity require a Parol Evidence Issue? Or are the same principles used in the third test applicable anytime you have to interpret a contract? Or is this only used when you have to interpret the new terms implemented through the Parol Evidence Rule?

HiiPower2015 wrote:I've searched around but I have not been able to find the answer to my questions on the parol evidence rule. As a heads up, my contracts professor teaches heavily from the Restatement and UCC. For the PAR, he said it is a three step process: 1) is there partial or complete integration? 2) apply the PRE 3) Interpret. As a general rule, he said we must ask ourselves whether the parties would have naturally included the terms in the contract. So far it all makes sense to me, but here is where I have my two questions.

1. He has also talked about the CA and NY standards when it comes to determining whether there is integration. The CA standard compares the K with the extrinsic evidence and the NY standard just looks at the four corners. Is it right to use these tests with the integration or is this more interpretation?

2. Does the third step in the test, interpration and ambiguity require a Parol Evidence Issue? Or are the same principles used in the third test applicable anytime you have to interpret a contract? Or is this only used when you have to interpret the new terms implemented through the Parol Evidence Rule?

i don't know the answer to 1, but if it's vague the court will look to the course of dealings and if it's still vague, they'd prob allow the parol evidence.

what the parol evidence is really only for is to say once a K exists, you can't bring in contradictory oral evidence from previous convos that are now contradicted in the K itself.

consistent additional terms are generally allowed to be brought in as evidence even if the contract isn't vague.

i dominated k's like chris brown dominates rihanna, and thought it's easiest to wrap your head around when you think about it like this:

1.) You and me sign a K where I buy three grams of crack cocaine for $25.
2.) I then claim we had a prior oral agreement where it would be $10.
3.) You then claim we had a prior oral agreement prior to this where it would be $50.

It never ends, hence why oral convos that contradict terms in the K are out.

If the terms are vague, you can alwaysssss bring in parol evidence to supplement it.... like if you were selling me crack cocaine for fair market value, I can say we agreed on the fair market value in Seattle, WA and it will be up to the court to buy it or not.

keep time frames in mind too. you can use parol evidence after the K is signed even without the parol ev rule, but the court might not believe you.

.