Question

3. Which of the following is excluded by the parol evidence rule?

1. Testimony by a party to an oral contract about the prior negotiations in order to contradict an unambiguous term.

2. A written agreement relating to the same transaction that was executed after the written contract in dispute was signed.

3. An email exchange by the parties to a written agreement dated prior to the date of execution of the contract in dispute in order to modify an unambiguous term.

4. An email exchange by the parties to a written agreement dated prior to the date of execution of the contract in dispute in order to clarify a confusing term.

Answer 1

Answer: The correct option is "Testimony by a party to an oral contract about the prior negotiations to contradict an unambiguous term."

Explanation:

The rule applies to parol evidence, just as other extraneous evidence, for example, composed correspondence that doesn't shape a different agreement. If an agreement is recorded as a hard copy and last to at any rate one term, parol or outward evidence will by and large be rejected. Nonetheless, there are various special cases to this general rule, including for mostly incorporated agreements, concurrences with independent thought, to determine ambiguities, or to build up contract safeguards.

To take a model, Jesse concurs recorded as a hard copy to sell Tom a vehicle for $2,000, yet later, Tom contends that Jesse prior disclosed to him that he would just need to pay Jesse $1800. The parol evidence rule would for the most part forestall Betty from testifying to this supposed discussion because the testimony ($1800) would legitimately negate the composed agreement's terms ($2,000).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you liked the answer please give an Up-vote, this will be quite encouraging for me, thank you!"