The way I 'spun' it was something like: "if a statement is made verbally which is not reflected in or contradicts the written agreement, it will usually not be considered a term because of the parol evidence rule which states blah blah ... however an exception might be made in certain circumstances e.g. Clayton Love v B&I." That was pretty much it!
I'm relieved to hear others don't think it was that important though, my main worry in answering that question was that I didn't spend *enough* time on it! You never really know exactly what they're looking for in some of these questions ... On 05/04/2009, 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!) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
