This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 15-5. THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (Stanfield v. Grove)In this situation, the judgment of court depends on determining whether or not oral contract is enforceable. In light of judgment of trial court, the court considered oral agreement between the parties to be enforceable legal arrangement. According to the chapter, Under the parol evidence rule, if a court finds that the parties intended their written contract to be a complete and final embodiment of their agreement, a party cannot introduce in court evidence of any oral agreement or promise made prior to the contracts formation or at the time the contract was created (p. 302). That is, the certificate of title signed by the parties was not viewed as a complete and final embodiment of the agreement in the trial. However, this reasoning is defective because the exceptions to the parol evidence rule admissible to a legal contractual instrument are not found in the title document.The certificate of title is an enforceable contract; it is not such an ambiguous or incomplete document that parol evidence is admissible to show the meaning of the terms in that it specifies the names of the parties, defines the essential terms, states the sale price, and is signed by the parties (p. 304). Also, if duress forcing a party to enter into the contract with threats or an obvious typographic error not representing the agreements between the parties is not proved by plaintiff, any exceptions that parol evidence could be admissible will not be present (p. 305). Therefore, the trial courts decision that considered parol evidence to be a basis for the judgment must be reversed.15-8. ORAL CONTRACTS (MacDonald v. Pinto)1At the trial, both the defendant and the plaintiff admitted that the parties orally agreed on the terms of employment, including payment to the plaintiff of a share of the companys income; because they coincide in that an oral contract itself exists, the contract will be enforceable (p. 298). In this case, therefore, the plaintiff does not need to prove the existence of the oral contract, and the judgment of the court should depend on the fact of their allegation implied in the oral contract.The defendant testified at trial that the plaintiff is entitled to $9,602.17 - 25 percent of the difference between the account receivable and the account payable as of his last day. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant owes him more than $83,500 - 25 percent of the revenue from all invoices, less the cost of materials and...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/24/2012 for the course BLAW 5330 taught by Professor Schweimer during the Spring '08 term at UT Arlington.
- Spring '08