I'd have to agree. The parol evidence rule relates to discussing circumstances in which courts can adduce external evidence to support a written contract. I dont think its that relevant (although could get brownie points) to a question which asks to identify how courts construe verbal statements. A discussion between whether they will form mere representations or terms of contract was what was asked for in my opinion.-that was the main thing-anything else was irrelevant or brownie point material
On Apr 5, 10:07 pm, brian <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't seen the paper, but my gut instinct is leaving out the parol > evidence rule wouldn't kill you. I mean, you could spin it like > this...if a contract or terms of a contract are allegedly oral, they > can only be proved by oral evidence. Specifically advising that "this > is ok because the 'exceptions' to the rule allow it" would (in real > life) be akin to saying "you have to prove what you allege". I just > think it that it would follow automatically that if one alleges the > existence of a verbal aspect of a contract, no-one in their right mind > would challenge that person's attempt to prove same in practice. So, > you could point out the legal basis for admission of such evidence, > but failure to do so...I dunno...doesn't seem like the end of the > world to me! (bearing mind I haven't seen the paper!) > > On Apr 5, 5:50 pm, Wendy Lyon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah I didn't spend a lot of time on it, but I assumed they wanted it > > mentioned because I couldn't think why else they would ask > > specifically about VERBAL statements ... > > > Didn't do anything on warranty/condition/innominate distinction though! > > > On 05/04/2009, LDGantly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > i completely left out/forgot about parol evidence rule--dont think it > > > was that relevant anyway. i think main cases were > > > oscar chess > > > dick bentley > > > BoI v Smyth > > > and then cases like leef v art gallery/christopher hill fine art to > > > demonstrate that expertise/experience matters...thats what i did > > > anyway. I also briefly mentioned how when courts establish that a > > > statement is a term, how they decide what kind of term it is-condition/ > > > warranty/intermediate. > > > i hope/think the above is correct --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
