Exceptions to the Parole Evidence Rule: Is Parole Evidence Rule Ucc Or Common Law
The Parole Evidence Rule, while crucial for maintaining the integrity of written contracts, isn’t absolute. Several well-established exceptions allow the admission of extrinsic evidence, even when it contradicts a seemingly unambiguous written agreement. These exceptions are designed to prevent injustice and ensure that the true intentions of the parties are considered, even if those intentions aren’t perfectly reflected in the final written document. The specific exceptions can vary slightly depending on whether the governing law is common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
The common exceptions generally revolve around situations where the written contract is incomplete, ambiguous, or suffers from defects in its formation. The UCC, designed for commercial transactions, has similar exceptions but with a stronger emphasis on the practical realities of business dealings.
Exceptions Under Common Law and the UCC
Common law and the UCC both recognize several key exceptions to the Parole Evidence Rule. These exceptions permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence to clarify or supplement the written agreement. Common exceptions include evidence of fraud, duress, mistake, or conditions precedent to the contract’s effectiveness. Under the UCC, these exceptions are similarly applicable, with additional exceptions tailored to the unique aspects of commercial transactions. For instance, the UCC specifically addresses course of dealing, usage of trade, and course of performance, allowing evidence of prior interactions between the parties to clarify the meaning of contract terms.
Examples of Admissible Extrinsic Evidence, Is parole evidence rule ucc or common law
Several scenarios illustrate when extrinsic evidence is admissible despite the Parole Evidence Rule. For example, if a party claims they were coerced into signing a contract under duress, evidence of threats or undue influence would be admissible, even if it contradicts the written terms. Similarly, if a significant mistake was made in drafting the contract, such as a clerical error in the quantity of goods, evidence correcting the mistake would be allowed. Under the UCC, if parties have consistently interpreted a particular clause in a certain way in their previous dealings (course of performance), that evidence can be used to interpret the current contract, even if it differs from a literal reading of the contract language. A classic example would be a long-standing agreement between a supplier and retailer regarding the delivery schedule, where past performance contradicts the current contract’s explicit terms. The UCC would likely prioritize the established course of performance.
Flowchart Illustrating Admissibility of Parole Evidence
A flowchart visualizing the process of determining the admissibility of parole evidence would begin with the question: “Is there a written contract?” If yes, the next step would be to determine if there is a claim that the written contract is incomplete, ambiguous, or suffers from a defect in formation (fraud, duress, mistake, etc.). If yes, then the extrinsic evidence is likely admissible under both common law and the UCC. If no, then the next step would be to determine if the evidence falls under a specific exception (e.g., course of dealing, usage of trade, or course of performance under the UCC). If yes, then the extrinsic evidence is admissible. If no, the parole evidence rule likely bars the admission of the evidence. The flowchart would visually represent this decision-making process, clearly showing the different paths depending on the circumstances and the governing law.
Tim Redaksi