Parol evidence: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "An old fashioned idea that once a contract is reduced to writing, any other evidence of the parties’ agreement or intentions must be ignored: in many ways a companion piece..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An old fashioned idea that once a contract is reduced to writing, any other evidence of the parties’ agreement or intentions must be ignored: in many ways a companion piece to the equally fusty “[[no oral modification]]” rule, which in the hands of well meaning commercial judges | {{g}}An old-fashioned idea that once a [[contract]] is reduced to writing, any other evidence of the parties’ agreement or intentions must be ignored: in many ways a companion piece to the equally fusty “[[no oral modification]]” rule, which in the hands of well-meaning but misguided commercial judges has been enjoying a bit of an Indian summer as of late. In practice there ''are'' exceptions — the common law of equity is basically one big exception — and you will usually need at least an [[entire agreement]] clause, unless your [[contract]] is of the sort that is required by law to be in writing.<ref>such as a contract for the conveyance of land.</ref> | ||
{{contract vs document}} | |||
{{course of dealing vs waiver}} | |||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[No oral modification]] | *[[No oral modification]] | ||
*[[Electronic execution]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 20:28, 23 March 2020
|
An old-fashioned idea that once a contract is reduced to writing, any other evidence of the parties’ agreement or intentions must be ignored: in many ways a companion piece to the equally fusty “no oral modification” rule, which in the hands of well-meaning but misguided commercial judges has been enjoying a bit of an Indian summer as of late. In practice there are exceptions — the common law of equity is basically one big exception — and you will usually need at least an entire agreement clause, unless your contract is of the sort that is required by law to be in writing.[1]
The contract versus the written agreement
The contract, consensus ad idem is an immaterial thing. It has no physical extension. It does not intrude on the mortal plane. Its best Earthly representative is the written agreement, a memorial on parchment wherein the parties do their best to set out the boundaries of their compact. The document is not the contract; the contract is not the document — they are spirit and flesh; a Platonic ideal and its flickering shadow on the grotto wall.
But if there should be some executed paper — for most contracts there need not, but let’s just say there is — a court will be disinclined to look beyond its “four corners” when divining the parties’ commercial intentions in signing it. This is in part convenience, in part laziness, but in part the fair assumption that, since the parties were bothered to write down the important parts of their agreement, anything they didn’t write down either didn’t exist or can’t have been important enough to justify memorialising. In this way the Platonic form of the contract and its bodily extension into our decadent organic realm become one. It’s rather biblical.
Since an issue that has attracted the attention of the Queen’s Bench Division must be important, the Court’s doubt will benefit not one party or the other, but the paperwork both of them signed. The Lord is not your witness, so the signed written record will have to do.
This rule against extraneous evidence — as with so many historic principles of the common law, these days a diminished thing — is known as the “parol evidence” rule.
The unilateral contract
Curiously, the foregoing is less obviously true in the case of a unilateral contract which is signed by neither parties: for example the famous carbolic smoke-ball. In that unique case, the immaterial consensus ad idem and the written form of the contract, albeit unsigned, are coextensive. There is no other articulation of the agreement.
Different approaches to evidence of the contract in the UK and US
England and the US have taken different paths when it comes to respecting the sanctity of that four-cornered document representing the contract. Whereas the parol evidence rule gives the written form a kind of “epistemic priority” over any other articulation of the abstract deal in the common law, in the new world greater regard will be had of how the parties behave when performing their contract, and less significance on what at the outset they wrote down.
So whereas in England action to not insist upon strict contractual rights will have scarce effect on those rights (at best a waiver by estoppel might arise, at least until it is withdrawn[2]), in the United States Uniform Commercial Code[3] a “course of dealing” between the parties at variance with the written terms of their bargain will tend to override those written terms. Thus, by not insisting on the strict terms of her deal, an American risks losing that deal, and will be taken by the course of dealing to have agreed something else; whereas an Englishman, by granting such an indulgence, at worst suspends his strict contractual rights but does not lose them.
In this way the parol evidence rule is less persuasive in American jurisprudence than in British.
See also
References
- ↑ such as a contract for the conveyance of land.
- ↑ Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
- ↑ § 1-303. Course of Performance, Course of Dealing, and Usage of Trade.