$20 Bonus + 25% OFF
Securing Higher Grades Costing Your Pocket? Book Your Assignment at The Lowest Price Now!

Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law

tag 1 Download10 Pages / 2,319 Words tag Add in library Click this icon and make it bookmark in your library to refer it later. GOT IT


Discussion about the Parol Evidence Rule in Contract Law.




Concept of Parole Evidence Rule
After the late 19th century, classical theorists began to conceive the contracts as a part of private legislation. They considered that even private individuals may get into contracts to put obligations on each other that could be enforced before a court of law. This led to the very assumption that any agreement, which is incomplete in its nature and essence, may not form part of a contract. (Gergen, 2010) This assumption developed the doctrine on indefinites on the basis of which another assumption was drawn and it was concluded that if parties to contract have reduced their obligations in writing then there are clear intentions from them to approach the court in case of dispute. Further, it was assumed that the court must look into the writing part with the aim to clearly determine the obligations set for each of the parties to contract. (Academy Chicago Publishers v Cheever, 1991)  This gave assumption gave birth to the concept of Parole Evidence Rule.
Significance of the Rule to the Law of Contracts
The obligations and situations of the parties are decided as per the agreed and written contract between them. When parties have made a written contract and have consented to it as accurate and complete integration of their thoughts and intentions, then any evidence either parole or otherwise, which may vary or contradict the aim of the contract, cannot be admitted for the purpose of supplying negotiations or understandings to the written contract. This is the parole evidence rule, which specifically aims to bind the parties towards the written and legally enforceable agreement signed between them. (Pitcairn v Philip Hiss Co., 1903) This rule has immense significance as it helps in ensuring that the parties do not turn their backs towards the very obligations agreed as per the contract. Further, the parties are abstained from interpreting or demeaning the clauses of the contract by supplying additional evidence. The rule helps in upholding that no evidence is required to prove any provision or clause made under the contract and thereby restricts the parties in taking undue advantage from negative interpretations of supplying additional evidence.


The Parole Evidence Rule

The Rule
The very rule of Parole Evidence restricts or prevents any introduction of evidence relating to contemporaneous or prior negotiations and agreements that might cause any modification or contradiction to the terms and provisions of the written contract. But in such cases, the written contract must be complete and should be based on the intentions of the parties. A contract with a “Merger Clause” helps in strengthening this presumption that the contract is complete and expresses the intention of the parties in totality. (JEC, 2016)
Prior to ensuring applicability of the parole evidence rule, the following questions must be considered by the court: (Corbin, 1944)
Whether a contract is made between the parties?
Whether by way of illegality, mistake, fraud, or other relevant reasons, there exists any possibility of the contract being rendered void or voidable?
Whether the parties have assented to a particular document or writing to be integrated to the complete and accurate contract agreed between them?
On the basis of the conclusions of the above questions, the court must decide whether the rule of parole evidence should be implemented in the context and situation of the case at hand or not. However, it is not necessary that while determining any of the above issues, the bench must be simple minded or gullible. The present question concerns the weight of evidence rather admissibility. (Zell v American Seating Co.,, 1943)
In Childs v South Jersey Amusement Co., (1923), the Court stated that the rule of parole evidence is not required to be justified by citing myriads of case. It is well established that if the parties have agreed to the terms stated in the contract by reducing such agreement to writing, then they cannot vary or contradict such terms by submitting additional proofs including agreements and negotiations.


Exceptions to the Rule

The rule of parole evidence is strict and thereby creates various hardships for both parties as well as the courts. Considering the same, the court has identified and established are six exceptions to the general rule of parole evidence, which have been detailed in the below paragraphs. These exceptions state that certain evidence may be considered by the court in addition to the written contract. The following evidence may be considered: (Mohamed & Mohamed, 2014)
First Exception states that evidence may be allowed that shows either the trade usage or custom to be a part of the contract even when not expressly included in the underlying terms of the contract. This rule is valid in relation to contracts of commercial transactions. The examples include: A Stock exchange’s dealing and a transaction of betting on racecourse with a registered dealer. In such cases the contract is valid but there may be encryption in regards the written evidence. In the Hutton v. Warren’s case, (1836), the court stated that in regards to well entrenched and accepted trade and custom it is presumed that they shall apply unless otherwise proved by the other party. Thus if a trade usage or custom exists that has not been incorporated within the terms of contract, it shall be considered irrespective of the rule of parole evidence.
Second Exception states that if there exists any verbal agreement, which is a condition precedent and the basis of the written contract such that it is crucial for the operation of such written agreement, then evidence proving the same shall be admissible before the courts. In Pym v Cambell, (1856), this exception has been relied by the courts where the court allowed a verbal condition to be adduced as evidence and stated that until fulfilment of such a condition the written contract could not be enforced. It may appear from the contract that it is well concluded between the parties to be enforced but the courts may admit some previously agreed extrinsic evidence that proves that the contract may not be enforced until the fulfilment of certain condition. For example: such condition may be by the approval of consent of party, or happening or non-happening of a future event.
Third Exception- if the claimant if able to prove that the written agreement does not include all the essential terms to the that were agreed between the parties, then certain missed out oral evidence or terms may be allowed by the court. For this exception to apply, the courts must first determine whether the contract is fully concluded and includes all the relevant and other terms required in the contract. Since, the party who relies on an oral term is basically trying to prove that the contract is partly written and partly oral. This exception was implemented in Van Den Esschert v Chappell¸ (1960), where the court stated that the oral agreement was relevant to the contract which was breached by the vendor who must compensate the other party. It is required to be highly alert while implementing this exception and the factors include time and relative importance must be considered in this regard.

Fourth Exception states that if there lies any ambiguity in the written terms of the contract then oral evidence may be required to eliminate any such ambiguity.
Fifth Exception states that if from the written contract it clearly seems that there exists a mistake then oral evidence for rectifying the said mistake may be allowed by the courts. This exception ensures that the vulnerable party does not lose pertaining to the mistake in the basic terms of the contract and it gets a chance for the rectification of mistakes under the parole evidence rule. For example: In cases, where the other party alleges any type of fraud or mistake, then the court may consider extrinsic evidence as admissible. In Janardan v Venkatesh, (1939), the court held that when there exists a mistake either in fact or law while determining and executing the terms of written contract and when such mistake exists for all the parties to contract, then evidence to rectify the mistake will be considered.
Sixth Exception states that in cases where the written contract is unable to establish or identify its parties, then the oral evidence will be used to ensure identification and impose obligations on the contracting parties. For example: if a contract is between an unregistered company or a company has negotiated a contract in lieu of pending registration. Then in such cases, the court may consider the proof of registration to establish the parties to contract. In the case of Gilberto v Kenny, (1983), the court stated that to prove the identity of the purchaser, extrinsic evidence may be considered so as to find out that whether the purchaser was acting solely for itself or also as the agent of her husband.

Implication of the Rule

For the above analysis of the exceptions, it becomes clear that the rule if applicable to wide arena of cases but may be excluded by taking shield of any of the valid exceptions or ensuring that the additional evidence is important to do justice to the parties. This section focuses on analysing the practical application of the parole evidence rule.


Practical Application of the Rule

The rule of Parole Evidence is always applied in the context of Australian Laws unless the claimant is successful in proving that the written contract is not capable of considering complete intentions of the parties. (Gordon v McGregor, 1909) The general presumption of the courts in case of a written contract, which includes all relevant terms to the contract, is that no type of evidence may be added at a later stage, which may vary the terms of the contract. (Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor 317 A.C., 1893).
Various authors have found that the implementation of this rule is comparatively less severe than what the actual rule appears to be. Consequent to this, various exceptions have been admitted by the Australian courts relying on the pattern of England courts but also maintaining certain differences. For example: in England the exception relating to subsequent conduct between the parties will be a weak exception to use to interpret the prior written and agreed contract. However, the Australian courts have agreed to the exception of ulterior behaviour between the contractual parties for the purpose of elucidating the vague or ambiguous terms of the contract. The legal stand of this exception relation to subsequent conduct has been varied as per the opinions of the court. It has been agreed in Air Great Lakes Pty. Ltd. v K. S. Easter (Holding) Pty. Ltd., (1985) and Farmer v Honan, (1919). But finally the Supreme Court in FAI Traders Insurance Company v Savoy Plaza Pty. Limited, (1993) resolved the conflict and stated that the law does not permit any degree of reliance in cases concerning subsequent conduct.
Further, in regards to the application of this rule it is pertinent to note that Australia is a signatory and has ratified to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods or CISG. However, considering the implementing of various legal traditions identified within the Convention, the Australian Courts have been witnessed to be incompatible to the application as required under the CISG. The incompatibility came during the case of South Sydney Rugby League v News Ltd., (2000), wherein the Court discussed the implications of the terms of contract on the basis of imputed or presumed intention between the parties. The court observed that not every Legislature State and Territory within the country is deterred to enact the provisions of CISG within their domestic laws. (Zuppi, 2007)


The rule of parole evidence has existed since history in the law of contract to ensure that a contract whose terms are agreed by the parties and suit their intentions, then such terms would be relied by the court and no additional or extra evidence may be adduced to interpret the terms of the contract. This rule helps in restricting the parties to the agreed terms of the contract so as to ensure that with changing circumstances the parties are not changing, otherwise it will vitiate the very existence of the contract. However, in certain cases the rule has been relaxed to ensure justice to the vulnerable parties whose interest may be defeated under the shield of parole evidence rule.


Academy Chicago Publishers v Cheever (1991) N.E. 2d 981.
Corbin, A., 1944. The Parol Evidence Rule. Yale School Legal Scholarship Repository, 603-665.
Gergen, M. P., 2010. Ango- American Contract and Torts, l.: Uni-goettingen.
JEC, 2016. The Parol Evidence Rule. [Online]
Available at:
Mohamed, M. A. S. & Mohamed, A. A. A., 2014. A Critical Appraisal of the Parol Evidence Rule in Contract Law. Istanbul, OCERINT, pp. 865-872.
Pitcairn v Philip Hiss Co. (1903) 110 Fed. 125.
Zell v American Seating Co., (1943) 641 F.2d 138.
Zuppi, A. L., 2007. The PArole EVidence Rule: A Comparative Study of the Common Law, The Civil Law Tradition, and Lex Mercatoria. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 233-276.
Childs v South Jersey Amusement Co., (1923) 122 Atl. 803.
Hutton v. Warren’s case, (1836) 1 M&W 466.
Pym v Cambell, (1856) 119 ER 903.
Van Den Esschert v Chappell, (1960) WAR 114.
Janardan v Venkatesh, (1939) AIR Bom 151.
Gilberto v Kenny, (1983) 48 CLR 620.
Gordon v McGregor, (1909) 9 CLR 316.
Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor, (1893) A.C. 317.
Air Great Lakes Pty. Ltd. v K. S. Easter (Holding) Pty. Ltd., (1985) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 309
Farmer v Honan, (1919) 26 C.L.R. 183
FAI Traders Insurance Company v Savoy Plaza Pty. Limited, (1993) 2 V. R. 343
South Sydney Rugby League v News Ltd., (2000) F.C.A. 1541
Download Sample

Get 100% money back after download, simply upload your unique content* of similar no. of pages or more. We verify your content and once successfully verified 100% value credited to your wallet within 7 days.

Upload Unique Document

Document Under Evaluation

Get Credits into Your Wallet

*The content must not be available online or in our existing Database to qualify as unique.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2017). Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law. Retrieved from

"Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law." My Assignment Help, 2017,

My Assignment Help (2017) Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law [Online]. Available from:
[Accessed 15 August 2020].

My Assignment Help. 'Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law' (My Assignment Help, 2017) <> accessed 15 August 2020.

My Assignment Help. Parol Evidence Rule In Contract Law [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2017 [cited 15 August 2020]. Available from: is widely acknowledged for providing affordable essay help among students in Australia. Being a cheap essay assistance service, we provide additional offers and discounts on each order. However, students don't need to worry about the quality of the paper because writers always write each paper from scratch while including all relevant research. Some of our popular services include English essay help, math essay help, marketing essay help, etc. So quit thinking 'who can help with my essay' and place an order with us.

Latest Business Law Samples

CSM 722 Contract Law In Construction Management

Download : 0 | Pages : 3
  • Course Code: CSM 722
  • University: Centennial College
  • Country: Canada

Answer: Introduction Ofcom: An evaluation of UK Broadcast journalism regulation of news and current affairs is an article by Christ Frost and talks about ethics in UK journalism. According to the author, Ofcom is the broadcasting regulatory of the UK which came into existence in 2003. The body is setup under communications ACT, and some of the duties include; ensuring that there is optimal use of electro-magnetic spectrum, high-quality r...

Read More arrow

BUSI 314 Employment Law For Business

Download : 0 | Pages : 2

Answer: Introductiom: Prejudice is a prejudgment or preconceived opinion of another person based on a person’s own experience or on reason. Some prejudices are negative while others are positive. Some have racist outcomes because they are racial in nature. However, not all forms of prejudice are racial in nature.  On the other hand, racism is a form of prejudice which is directed by someone of a different race on the belief that th...

Read More arrow

1209121 Business Law Report

Download : 0 | Pages : 8
  • Course Code: 1209121
  • University: Florida State University
  • Country: United States

Answer: Introduction: The court process involves many parties but the buck stops with the judge. The judge is tasked to ensure that process in the court is adhered to while maintaining courtroom respect as well as consistency , neutrality and principle. After observing several courtroom sessions in the Downing Centre, there is a lot that I learnt with regards to court mannerisms and how it affects the trial process in its entirety. Procedural...

Read More arrow

LAW40359 Intellectual Property Flex Prog 1

Download : 0 | Pages : 51
  • Course Code: LAW 40359
  • University: Nottingham Trent University
  • Country: United Kingdom

Answer: Introduction India has been mentioned by Sepp Blatter the former president of FIFA as a sleeping giant given the billions of population it has been holding, in which the industry related to Sports in the form of profession has been gaining popularity rigorously. The development of the sports industry as one of the most important profession in India has presented a demand for a stringent overall legislation coordinating the whole struc...

Read More arrow Tags: United Kingdom Nottingham 8 sports law Nottingham Trent University 

M221 Business Law Assignment

Download : 0 | Pages : 5
  • Course Code: M221
  • University: De Montfort University
  • Country: United Kingdom

Answer: Introduction: 1 Name of the Case - Brumfield v. Cain, 576 2 Name of the Court – The United States Supreme Court 3 Case Citation- U.S 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)(2015) 5 Key facts- In this case Kevan Brumfield had been sentenced to death for the murder of an off duty officer Smothers. Brumfield had been accompanied by another individual who assisted him in the murder of officer Smothers while she had been escorting grocery man...

Read More arrow

Save Time & improve Grade

Just share Requriment and get customize Solution.

We will use e-mail only for:

arrow Communication regarding your orders

arrow To send you invoices, and other billing info

arrow To provide you with information of offers and other benefits




Overall Rating



Our Amazing Features


On Time Delivery

Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.


Plagiarism Free Work

Using reliable plagiarism detection software, only provide customized 100 percent original papers.


24 X 7 Live Help

Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat.


Services For All Subjects

Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.


Best Price Guarantee

Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.

Our Experts

Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

453 Order Completed

98% Response Time

Howard Asuncion

LLM in Criminal Law

London, United Kingdom

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

798 Order Completed

97% Response Time

Benjamin Blakeman

MSc in Medical Technology

London, United Kingdom

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

285 Order Completed

99% Response Time

Eugene Baranowski

MBA in Supply Chain

London, United Kingdom

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

2115 Order Completed

97% Response Time

Kimberley Chen

MPA in Accounting

Singapore, Singapore

Hire Me

FREE Tools


Plagiarism Checker

Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.


Essay Typer

Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.


GPA Calculator

Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.


Chemical Equation Balancer

Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.


Word Counter & Page Calculator

Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.

Refer Just 5 Friends to Earn More than $2000

Check your estimated earning as per your ability




Your Approx Earning

Live Review

Our Mission Client Satisfaction

Awesome work. Awesome response time. Very thorough & clear. Love the results I get with MAH!


User Id: 383727 - 31 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

Work was done in a timely manner took it through grammarly checked for plagiarism very well satisfied


User Id: 463334 - 31 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

Great work for the short notice given. Thank you for never disappointing and helping out.


User Id: 194216 - 31 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

I received a full point on the assignment. Thank you for all the help with the assignment.


User Id: 411395 - 31 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating
callback request mobile
Have any Query?