The Parol Evidence Rule: A Comparative Analysis and Proposal
University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 26, p. 680, 2003
23 Pages Posted: 22 Feb 2006 Last revised: 9 Oct 2009
Date Written: 2003
Abstract
This article examines the parol evidence rule as it exists in Australian and U.S. law. Whereas Australian law still maintains a strict version of the rule, American states have generally moved to a weaker version of the rule, in which evidence of the true intentions of the parties is often admitted. Nonetheless, in both countries clear support can be found for both strong and weak versions of the rule. This article argues that the inability of either country to adopt a single general interpretation of the rule arises not from the rule itself, but from the factual situations to which it is applied. A strong rule is applicable in dealing with disputes arising from corporate interactions, and other situations in which the parties have contracted in a formalized, arms-length manner. However, a strong version of the rule is inappropriate in contracts arising from more intimate relationships. The article concludes that courts should recognize this distinction, and instead of adopting a single parol evidence rule, should formulate guidelines for the application of strong and weak rules.
Keywords: parol evidence rule, textualism, contract, comparative law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation