Parol Admission

Question 1

Interpretation: Pro-evidence rule

Answer 1

Extrinsic evidence admissibility based on the rule

Question 2

Background to Parol Evidence:

Answer 2

Default rule: evidence of prior statements leading up to a written K is admissible.

Assumption: Everything parties agreed to prior to signing is embodies in written in contract.

Evidentiary Role: Describes when such evidence is admissible

Value: integrity/weight to written word

Question 3

CBI Capital LLC v. Mullen

Answer 3

Parol Evidence rule in action.

Abstract question:

Abstract rule:

Brief: Plaintiff relied upon an oral agreement by the defendant to fund the oil rig. The integrated contract said the funding terms were different.

Question 4

Preference for the written word.

Answer 4

Courts prefer the written word because it is a more objective look into the assent of the parties.

Question 5

Context to interpreting the integration of a contract.

Answer 5

Classic Rule (merger)
a) Plain meaning or four corners rule
b) Before PER, find ambiguous language.
c) No outside evidence
d) Merger clause dispositive
Modern Rule
a) ambiguity
b) outside evidence re: intent of integration
c) considerations: language, conduct, merger clasue

Question 6

integration
is written contract intended to be the final expression

Partial or complete
a) is contract final but not complete
b) is the contract final and complete

Admissibility
a) is evidence contradictory or supplementary

Exceptions
a) do any exceptions apply

IPCAE

Answer 6

Framework for Parol

Question 7

Evidence of integration

Answer 7

1. Merger clause
2. Amount of detail in writing
3. Nature of writing
4. Formalities observed in drafting/executing
5. Type of transaction/business practices
6. relationship of parties and past dealings
7. Nature of parol evidence

Question 8

Partial or complete integration

Answer 8

1. Partial integration
   a) final but not complete
   b) consistent add’l terms are admissiable
2. Full/complete integration
   a) final and complete
   v. Consisten additional terms are not admissible

Question 9

Admissibility

Answer 9

No integration: admit it all
partial integrationL only consistent additional terms.
Total integration: not admissible

Question 10

Plain meaning rule: The courts probably won’t take any extrinsic evidence.

Question 11

Integration clause says that this agreement states the complete terms of the transaction.

Question 12

Betaco v. Cessna Aircraft

Answer 12

Brief facts: Plaintiff put down a deposit for an aircraft based on a correspondance. There was an integration clause. Plaintiff wants his money back.

Issue: Is the integration partial or complete?

Abstract rule: