Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Parol Evidence Rule (PER)

    Uploaded by

    Andreas Wilia
    Chin signed a one-year data plan contract with StarTel but wants to terminate after seven months. StarTel says there will be an early termination fee as stated in the contract. Chin argues a promotional brochure implied there were no such fees. The parol evidence rule generally prohibits introducing prior statements that contradict a written contract. However, there are exceptions that allow outside evidence to clarify terms, demonstrate collateral agreements if they don't contradict the written contract, or prove fraud. Here, the promotional brochure contradicts the contract terms but was provided before Chin signed. So while the parol evidence rule applies, an exception allows Chin to present evidence of promises different than the written contract despite not reading it fully.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Parol Evidence Rule (PER)

    Uploaded by

    Andreas Wilia
    25 views6 pages
    Chin signed a one-year data plan contract with StarTel but wants to terminate after seven months. StarTel says there will be an early termination fee as stated in the contract. Chin argues a promotional brochure implied there were no such fees. The parol evidence rule generally prohibits introducing prior statements that contradict a written contract. However, there are exceptions that allow outside evidence to clarify terms, demonstrate collateral agreements if they don't contradict the written contract, or prove fraud. Here, the promotional brochure contradicts the contract terms but was provided before Chin signed. So while the parol evidence rule applies, an exception allows Chin to present evidence of promises different than the written contract despite not reading it fully.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    PPT Parol Evidence Rule (PER)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Chin signed a one-year data plan contract with StarTel but wants to terminate after seven months. StarTel says there will be an early termination fee as stated in the contract. Chin argues a promotional brochure implied there were no such fees. The parol evidence rule generally prohibits introducing prior statements that contradict a written contract. However, there are exceptions that allow outside evidence to clarify terms, demonstrate collateral agreements if they don't contradict the written contract, or prove fraud. Here, the promotional brochure contradicts the contract terms but was provided before Chin signed. So while the parol evidence rule applies, an exception allows Chin to present evidence of promises different than the written contract despite not reading it fully.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    25 views6 pages

    Parol Evidence Rule (PER)

    Uploaded by

    Andreas Wilia
    Chin signed a one-year data plan contract with StarTel but wants to terminate after seven months. StarTel says there will be an early termination fee as stated in the contract. Chin argues a promotional brochure implied there were no such fees. The parol evidence rule generally prohibits introducing prior statements that contradict a written contract. However, there are exceptions that allow outside evidence to clarify terms, demonstrate collateral agreements if they don't contradict the written contract, or prove fraud. Here, the promotional brochure contradicts the contract terms but was provided before Chin signed. So while the parol evidence rule applies, an exception allows Chin to present evidence of promises different than the written contract despite not reading it fully.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Question 2

    Legal Case Study


    Facts
    • Chin signed one year data plan contract.
    • Seven months after the purchase, he would like to terminate the data
    plan.
    • StarTel informed Chin that termination before the contract period will
    led to a termination charge as stated in Penalty Clause in the signed
    agreement.
    • However, the promotional brochure implied there was no early
    termination charge.
    • It had specified term “this agreement constitutes the entire contract
    between the parties.”
    Parol Evidence Rule (PER)
    • PER is a contract law doctrine that when the parties to a contract have
    made and signed a written contract, evidence of prior negotiations will
    not be admissible for the purpose of contradicting what is written into
    the contract.
    • Before the PER applies there must be:
    • a written contract and must be a “complete integration”
    • an extrinsic evidence
    • an extrinsic evidence must be prior to written contract
    • PER prohibits a party from introducing evidence of prior statements at
    odds with the terms of a written contract, exception evidence of fraud.
    However, exception to such rule allows a party to present extrinsic
    evidence
    • When is outside evidence allowed?
    1. Outside evidence is allowed is to clarify terms in a contract
    2. Outside evidence is allowed is to demostrate evidence of collateral
    agreements. However this only allowed if the collateral agreement:
    a) Does not contradict the written and finalized contract
    b) Does not contain terms that would normally be included in the present agreement

    3. Parol evidence may be used to demonstrate that a party is fraudulently


    induced to enter into an agreement
    Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit
    Association
    Case Background:
    1. The plaintiffs restructured a debt agreement in the new contract
    2. The defendant promised not to take any enforcement action for three months after execution of
    the contract
    3. The plaintiff signed the contract without reading it and soon defaulted in the dispute
    4. The credit association vice president met with them two weeks before the contract was signed
    and priomised them that they would extend the loan for two years
    5. These alleged promises directly contradicted the written contract
    6. The court held that the outside evidence of these meetings and promises could be introduced

    The court removed the limit on fraud evidence. The court held that a litigant may offer any
    evidence, including a prior oral agreement, to prove fraud, even if it contradicts a term in a written
    contract.

    Under the opinion, a party to a contract will not necessarily be held responsible for understanding
    its written terms before signing it.
    The PER applies, based on the fact that:
    1. Chin and StarTel have entered into a complete and final agreement
    2. The brochure stated “no early termination charges”
    3. Chin was handed the promotional brochure prior signing the data plan contract

    In this case, the outside evidence is allowed based on the promotional brochure
    nevertheless it contradict with the clause in the agreement, and Chin signed the
    contract without reading it

    Therefore, Chin can present evidence of promises at odds with the written contracts
    despite the existence of parol evidence rule

    You might also like