Parole Evidence Rule PaperPlace Your Order Now
How Does Our System Work?
It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order
Submit your Question
Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.
Best Writer Assigned
We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.
Calculate the price of your order
Parole Evidence Rule Essay
Parole Evidence Rule Assignment
Prior communications mostly alter the terms of a contract, and this is the main reason why courts want to exclude them from being produced as part of the evidence in contract cases. This protects the entrepreneurs and other business people from being exploited by companies or other businesses they get into a contract with (Fugate, Gasper & Schmitt, 2018). In the process of negotiations, the company seeking the contract tend to give hopes and verbal offers which are not part of the agreement. If the terms are not changed before the contract is signed to accommodate the new promises, these verbal terms remain useless (Gordon, 2010). However, if the prior communication contains an integration clause, it can be used in the courts as evidence. If the integration clause specifically points out to various references, documents, information and other communications outside the contract, then they become part of the agreement.
The case between Clayton and Samson is an example of a contract that ends up in court for further interpretation. It is imperative to note that if the contract required Clayton to conduct preliminary business analysis only, then Samson cannot argue otherwise regarding prior communications not unless the contract contains an integration clause (Fugate, Gasper & Schmitt, 2018). An integration clause either merges prior communication and other documents into the agreement or bars any other text or prior discussion from being referenced as part of contract terms (Gordon, 2010). The court will overlook the prior communications because if they consider it, and it was not part of the contract, Clayton will go at a loss for performing more than he is getting paid. If the integration clause points explicitly out the prior communication as part of the contract, then the court will rule in favour of Samson.
.................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY