Parol Evidence Rule CASES
In English law, the parol evidence rule restricts parties from presenting external oral or written evidence that contradicts or alters the terms of a written contract intended to be complete.
Definition and Principles
The rule upholds the integrity of written agreements, preventing confusion and disputes by excluding prior or contemporaneous oral statements or documents that conflict with the final written terms.
Exceptions
- Ambiguity: To clarify unclear or ambiguous terms.
- Misrepresentation or Fraud: To demonstrate misstatements inducing the contract.
- Mistake or Duress: Showing a contract was made under incorrect assumptions or undue pressure.
- Collateral Agreements: To establish secondary agreements not contradicting primary terms.
Practical Importance
Understanding the parol evidence rule ensures parties appreciate the binding nature of written agreements, highlighting the importance of clearly documented contractual terms.
Home » Parol Evidence Rule
The seller of a motorcycle incorrectly stated its model year a week before the sale. The subsequent written contract did not include this detail. The court held the statement was an innocent misrepresentation, not a contractual term (warranty). Facts The plaintiff, Mr Routledge, purchased a Douglas motorcycle combination from the defendant, Mr McKay. During pre-contractual negotiations on 23rd October 1949, the defendant, relying on information in the motorcycle’s registration book, stated that it was a 1942 model. In fact, the registration book was a replacement and incorrect; the motorcycle was a 1936 model with a sidecar of an even earlier
The claimant purchased a faulty cigarette machine, signing an agreement without reading it. The contract contained a clause in small print excluding all warranties. The court held that by signing the document, she was bound by its terms, establishing the principle of incorporation by signature. Facts The claimant, Miss L’Estrange, a proprietor of a café in Llandudno, purchased an automatic slot machine for cigarettes from the defendants, F Graucob Ltd. She signed a ‘Sales Agreement’ printed on brown paper which was filled in by the defendants’ agent. The agreement contained, in small print, a clause stating: ‘This agreement contains all
A tenant farmer's lease expired, but he claimed an allowance for seed and labour based on local custom. The lease was silent on this. The court held that established custom can be implied into a written contract unless expressly excluded. Facts The plaintiff was a tenant farmer on land in Lincolnshire, holding the tenancy under a lease from the former rector of the parish. In 1833, the defendant, the succeeding rector, gave the plaintiff notice to quit. Upon quitting, the plaintiff had undertaken tillage and sowing of the land during his final year, providing seeds and labour from which he
