The parol evidence rule most commonly arises in contract disputes when one party seeks to introduce testimony or documents about negotiations or oral agreements that preceded the written contract. The court must first determine whether the writing is fully or partially integrated. If fully integrated, no extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous terms is admissible. If partially integrated, consistent additional terms may be shown but contradictory terms may not. Important exceptions allow parol evidence to show fraud, duress, mistake, ambiguity, conditions precedent, or that the agreement is voidable. The rule applies only to evidence offered to contradict or supplement the writing — it does not bar evidence offered for other purposes.
Opposing Counsel: "Objection, Your Honor. The witness is attempting to testify about an oral promise allegedly made before the contract was signed. The written agreement contains an integration clause, and the parol evidence rule bars this testimony." Judge: "Sustained. The contract is fully integrated."
Attorney: "Your Honor, we offer this pre-contract correspondence not to vary the terms of the agreement, but to demonstrate that the defendant induced our client to sign through fraudulent misrepresentations. The fraud exception to the parol evidence rule applies."
Judge: "The court finds the agreement is only partially integrated with respect to delivery terms. The plaintiff may introduce evidence of the additional consistent oral agreement regarding shipping responsibilities."
Students often apply the parol evidence rule too broadly, believing it bars all prior statements. The rule only excludes evidence offered to contradict or supplement an integrated writing. Evidence of fraud, mistake, duress, ambiguity, or subsequent modifications is not barred. Additionally, the rule is a substantive rule of contract law, not merely a rule of evidence.
Gianni v. R. Russell & Co., 281 Pa. 320 (1924)
Established that where a written lease is comprehensive and detailed, an alleged oral agreement granting exclusive rights that naturally would have been included in the writing is barred by the parol evidence rule.
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69 Cal. 2d 33 (1968)
Held that extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the meaning of contract language that is reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged, even if the language appears unambiguous on its face.
Masterson v. Sine, 68 Cal. 2d 222 (1968)
Held that parol evidence of an oral agreement restricting the right of assignability was admissible because the written option agreement was only partially integrated with respect to that term.
What is an integrated agreement under the parol evidence rule?
An integrated agreement is a writing that the parties intended to be the final expression of their agreement. A fully integrated agreement is intended as the complete and exclusive statement of all terms. A partially integrated agreement is final on the terms it contains but may be supplemented by consistent additional terms proved by extrinsic evidence.
What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?
Major exceptions allow parol evidence to show: fraud in the inducement, duress or undue influence, mutual or unilateral mistake, ambiguity in contract terms, conditions precedent to formation, subsequent modifications, that the agreement is void or voidable, and to explain trade usage or course of dealing.
Does the parol evidence rule apply to subsequent agreements?
No, the parol evidence rule only bars evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements and negotiations. Agreements made after the written contract was executed are not barred. The rule protects the finality of the writing at the time of its execution, not against later modifications.
What is the role of a merger clause (integration clause)?
A merger clause states that the written agreement represents the parties' entire understanding and supersedes all prior negotiations. While courts generally give merger clauses significant weight in finding full integration, some jurisdictions hold that a merger clause is not conclusive and can be overcome by evidence of fraud, mistake, or other defenses.
The best evidence rule (more accurately called the "original document rule") requires that when the ...
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than...
Foundation refers to the preliminary showing that must be made before evidence is admitted. It estab...
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact...
Apply your knowledge of this term in a realistic courtroom simulation
Start a Mock Trial