Question

What argument would you consider for keeping, getting rid of the parol evidence rule or, modify the concept? Explain and why?

Answer 1

To begin with, let's first understand what exactely Parol Evidence rule is.

Parol eveidence is mentioned in the anglo- american law, and according to this law while determining the specific terms of any contract, any external evidence is not required. Only the written agreement is considered to be complete and finalised.

Let's understand this with a help of a very simple example. Supposedly, at the time of a home sale, there was a agreement between the seller and the buyer in which the selling price of the home is mentioned as $5,00,000. Any point of the time after the agreement the buyer can't claim that the seller agreed to sell it for so and so amount other than the one mentioned in the agreement. Hence, parol evidence rule can also be called as the " Outside evidence rule" wherein any outside evidence cant be used where there is a written contract.

To understand deeply, let's take an argument that this law should be removed. The reason i am saying so, is because of the multiple exceptions where this law itself becomes null and void. Some of the exceptions i am listing below.

* The parol evidence rule fails while resolving the ambiguities in the contract or while interpreting the terms of any particular contract. This exception is straight forward as it simply means that if there is any term which is missing or which is not being understood by the court, then naturally any external evidence would have to be introduced to solve that ambiguity.

* One situation could be to show that a particular term mentioned in a contract is a mistake. It can be because of grammatical or clerical error. That is external factor or error have to be introduced.

* If there is any tamperment done with the agreement like fraud, duress done. Here we need to introduce some external parties to built a base of communication.

* One more situation where it becomes null and void is when we need to show a condition that had to occur before the expiry of the contract's performance. For example : an inspection which is being done before the sale of the house.

Keeping in mind all these pointers, I personally feel that this law should be replaced with some effective law whose failure chances are very less.

Hope this helps !!