Page 23 Flashcards
What is an integration?
A writing that is intended to be a final and complete expression of the agreement of the parties
What are the major tests under the parol evidence rule to determine if an integration has occurred?
- four corners rule
- Williston
- Corbin
- UCC
What is the four corners rule to determine if an integration has happened under the parol evidence rule?
You figure out if the document was meant to be final from the document only (no extraneous evidence allowed to help it). Wording is paramount and the intention of parties is irrelevant.
What is the Williston rule to figure out if an integration has occurred under the parol evidence rule?
Asks if a reasonable person would naturally have omitted the term from the writing. Intention of actual party is irrelevant. Broad approach that usually excludes Parol evidence
If two people have a written agreement that one will buy the other’s farm, and the seller orally agrees to tear down the shed, if the Williston approach is followed, what is the result?
Evidence of the oral agreement will not be admissible because a reasonable person wouldn’t have omitted that from the writing
What is a merger clause?
Provision that declares the writing to be the entire agreement of the parties
If a writing is thought to be a total integration, can parol evidence be admitted?
No
What is the standard for a reasonable person under the Williston parole evidence rule?
The meaning a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with all usages and knowing all circumstances before and contemporaneous with the integration would have attached to the integration or disputed term. This excludes anything the parties said to each other about meaning or what they subjectively believed the writing meant
What are the two ways the Williston rule can be rebutted?
- if the document is obviously incomplete
- if the merger clause was a mistake or there’s other good reason to set aside the contract
What is the Corbin approach to determine if an integration has happened under the parol evidence rule?
The court looks at all the circumstances of the individual case to determine if the actual parties would have naturally omitted the parol agreement from the writing
If you convey your ranch to someone in a writing and have an option to re-purchase at a certain price that you orally agree is personal to you and can’t be assigned, how would the Corbin approach under the parol evidence rule treat the oral agreement?
It would likely not bar it
If a document is a partial integration, can parole evidence be used to supplement the terms?
Yes, because it wasn’t a total integration and parol evidence can supplement it with any terms that are not contradictory
Under the Corbin approach to an integration, if one party is more guilty than another, what happens?
The less guilty party’s meaning prevails
Under an insurance contract, what is the rule about the reasonable expectation of the beneficiaries?
That prevails even if the provisions would negate that expectation
What are three rules to help determine intent of a contract?
- general words that follow specific lists of things are thought to be the same kind
- words are known by their associates, so they take coloration from the context
- expression of one thing is exclusion of another, so if it is silent about something, it is assumed not to be included
