Parol Evidence Rule in Contract
evidence general beginner mcq_debateI have a friend from my college days who's a bit of a contract law geek, and we got into a debate over the Parol Evidence Rule. The question was,
Question: Can oral agreement be used to contradict a written agreement? (yes/no)
Argument supporting 'yes': Maina socha thi, oral agreement can't contradict a written contract because that's what the Parol Evidence Rule says - it doesn't allow extrinsic evidence to alter the terms of a written contract. We can't change the written words of the contract, right?
Argument 'no': But, kya maina socha tha I understand, my friend said that the Parol Evidence Rule is not about contradicting the written contract, it's about not altering its terms. So, if we have an oral agreement that says something opposite of what's written, it's still a valid agreement because it was entered into simultaneously.
Parol Evidence Rule in Contract kuchh zaroori cheez hai. Yeh rule aisa hai ki jab ek contract ka ek writing ya agreement hai, toh court ko iski outside evidence nahi accept karna chahiye. Iske under, court ko ek contract ka meaning only written terms se nikalna hota hai, aur iska ek specific meaning bhi nahi hota hai.