2 issue where a party has prior evidence that

This preview shows page 27 - 29 out of 51 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter Q / Exercise 1
Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures
Miltenberger
Expert Verified
2.Issue: where a party has prior evidence that conflicts with the written agreement.3.Tips for PER:a.PER is super loose, lot of holes like the SOFs - we want to encourage trade!! The worst thing that can happen if we remove the PER in a case is the evidence is submitted to the jury. b.PER TILTwill be away from enforcing the PER and more towards the exceptions!c.PER ONLY APPLIES TO:i.CONTRACTS THAT ARE TOTALLY INTEGRATED.ii.CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN WRITING d.PER refers to things said or written before the writing. Anything said or written after the writing doesn’t fall within this rulee.PER is a substantive rule- if you fail to raise this question you can raise it at any time even during appeal27
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter Q / Exercise 1
Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures
Miltenberger
Expert Verified
f.PER is simply there to decide whether the evidence should be admitted. It doesn’t decide the weight of the evidence!g.PER doesn’t exclude implied terms4.PER operates only to exclude evidence.When Parole Evidence is Admissible: (How do we know if the K is fully integrated or final?)1.Is the written agreement fully integrated?a.Fully Integrated Contract: Writing intending to be the final/exclusive, complete expression of the whole agreement Parole Evidence is BARREDi.Can say this with a merger clause(if state it in the contract, then that is the end)b.Partially Integrated:Writing is incomplete expression of the agreement (intended to be final but not complete) Parole Evidence is ADMISSIBLEfor limited purposes.i.PE is inadmissibleto contradict or vary terms of a valid written instrument2.Is there enough ambiguity injected into the deal language that you can justify pulling away the barrier ofthe PER and submitting the evidence to the jury?Approaches to these questions: 1.Four Corners of the Document:Can tell it is a fully integrated contract just by looking at the actual writing of the contracta.Look for MERGERclause-(a clause stating agreement is fully integrated)i.Willistonian view:dispositive/conclusively establish that doc is fully integrated, (probably majority) 1.All prior dealings are assumed to be merged into this piece of writing. If they wanted any other terms in the contract they would have written it inii.Some courts: may take it as one piece of evidence to be consideredb.Do not look at any external factorsc.There may be places of ambiguity and we might allow external evidence for clarification only!!i.But not for contradicting the contract.d.If writing appears clear from its face the meaning of the terms must be decided from the 4 corners of the document without extrinsic evidencee.Thompson v. Libby(P sues D for $ due for purchase of logs, D alleges a breach of an oral warranty of quality. Warranty not included in the written K so not admissible)i.Court holds for P, doesn’t allow oral evidence of warrant. PE is inadmissible. ii.Finds that K was fully integrated - The contract seems complete on its face by looking solely at the writing itself.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture