In contract law, written agreements are superior to oral or implied ones. The verbal proof rule can be challenged by extrinsic evidence, such as oral changes or fraud. Ambiguity or fraud can also render a contract unenforceable. It is important to fully understand a contract before signing.
There are two main rules to follow when it comes to contracts and contract law. One is to get everything in writing and the other is to know exactly what you are signing. If a contractual dispute results in the filing of a civil suit, the written word often supersedes any oral or implied agreement. This is the basis for what is known in contract law as the verbal proof rule. Under common law, verbal evidence such as a signed contract is considered “fully integrated,” meaning it is the last and most official form of binding agreement.
This verbal evidence rule can be legally challenged, however, by the presentation of extrinsic evidence in court. Extrinsic evidence could include oral changes to the contract before it becomes final or external circumstances such as fraud or duress that could render verbal evidence unenforceable. One could also argue, through extrinsic evidence, that the contract was signed under duress, or that it is not the latest or final draft of the contract.
Parol’s evidence, at least in the eyes of contract law, should be clear and unambiguous. The doc can state in writing that A has agreed to paint B’s garage by a specified date. If B provides evidence that A failed to complete the work by that date, the judge should have a signed contract detailing how. This would be considered legal proof. If the judge strictly ruled on the terms of the contract, B would most likely prevail in the case and A would have an obligation to honor the contract or return any payments already received.
Extrinsic evidence, however, can be persuasive enough to override verbal evidence under the right circumstances. If A could prove that B told him over the phone that he could wait a few more days to paint B’s garage, or that B would not allow A onto the property for some reason, then the judge could consider the extrinsic evidence before taking a decision . However, extrinsic evidence often indicates that the contract has not been completed or integrated, so the judge may need to decide whether both parties actually met before signing a final contract.
Parol’s evidence can also be examined for signs of ambiguity or fraud, although the legal definition of “ambiguity” may itself be ambiguous. In our case, the signed contract might read “A agrees to paint B’s garage in a reasonable amount of time.” This could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement, as A’s definition of reasonable time may be different from B’s. It could also turn out that A is not actually a professional painter and never intended to honor his share of the contract. This would prove that fraud has occurred and B could actually recover damages from A for not finishing the job.
In general, verbal evidence is considered the final and legally binding word when dealing with contracts, but extrinsic evidence may be considered by the court in a limited number of circumstances. This is why it is crucial that both parties read and fully understand a contract before signing, as any other informal changes or additions may not be recognized in a court of law later.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
