Parol Evidence Rule - MBE
The flashcards below were created by user
When a party seeks to introduce parol evidence, the court will determine the admissibility of the evidence based on what 2 questions?
(1) what is the purpose for which the evidence is being introduced?
(2) does the evidence relate to a term which is integrated?
The PER governs the admissibility of what type of evidence?
both oral and documenatry evidence of negotiations and other communications b/t the parties that took place prior to or contemporaneously with the execution of the K
What does fully integrated mean?
the terms contained in the K are intended to be the final expression of those terms
What does completely integrated mean?
the parties intend the K to represent a complete and exclusive statement of all of the terms
Who decides whether a K is fully integrated and whether an integration is complete?
On what evidence does the judge rely when deciding the complete integration of a K?
(1) Merger Clause
(2) detail of the K provisions
(3) length of the agreement itself
What is the most important evidence that the parties intended their written agreement to represent an exhaustive account of their K obligations?
presence of a merger clause reciting that the writing contains the complete and entire agreement of the parties or other words to that effect
What are the 3 different purposes for which parol evidence may be being introduced?
(1) to explain or interpret the terms of the written K
(2) to supplement the terms of the written K
(3) to contradict the terms of the written K
What is the majority rule regarding the use of parol evidence to explain or interpret the terms of a written K?
PE is always admissible for this purpose
What is the general rule regarding the admissibility of PE to supplement terms of a written K?
PE is admissible for this purpose unless the K is completely integrated
Under the UCC can CoPCoDUoT be used to supplement terms of a completely integrated agreement?
What is the general rule regarding the admissibility of PE to contradict terms of a written K?
PE isn't admissible for this purpose if the tersm in question are integrated
The PER won't apply to what types of evidence?
(1) subsequent agreements
(2) collateral agreements
(3) attack on the validity of the written agreement
In what ways can a party assert a claim that the written agreement is invalid or unenforceable?
(1) failure of an oral condition precedent to the agreement
(2) absence of consideration
(3) mistake or duress
What is the majority rule regarding the admissibility of PE to prove fraud?
PE of fraud is always admissible
What is the minority rule regarding the admissibility of PE to prove fraud?
such evidence is admissible unless the K suggests that the parties made no representations and relied on no representations during the course of making the agreement
For the P to obtain reformation, what must he show?
(1) that there was an antecedent valid agreement
(2) which is incorrectly reflected in the writing by mistake or fraud
(3) proof of these elements is established by C&C evidence
Parol Evidence Rule - MBE
PER - MBE