I did the entire question on the parol evidence rule, as it's not about the courts allowing external evidence in general, its about them allowing external 'oral' evidence to show that a certain situation or certain fact is a terms into a contract. Maybe i'm all wrong on this! But had last exam today so hope everyone gets on good.
On Apr 6, 12:13 am, LDGantly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
