Talk:Parol evidence rule

Untitled

How do you change the title of the page? Parole is spelt with an e on the end of it.

-And "spelled" is not spelled "spelt".

There is a word spelled "parole," and this isn't it. This is something else, and it's spelled correctly. Sliderman 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

pa·rol (p-rl, prl) Law n. An oral statement or utterance: by parol. adj. Expressed or evidenced by word of mouth; not written.

- why do i get redirected here from the query "partial integration" (which is a synonym for integration-by-parts)? Shouldn't there be at least a link to Integration_by_parts?

Parol does not mean oral, it's the french word for informal, "not under seal". 107.199.38.211 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Maximus

A parol evidence case in West Virginia?

Of all the available examples out there, why use a pending case in West Virginia involving one of the most obscure universities in the nation? I thought West Virginia and "university" were an oxymoron. There are a lot of better known, already-decided parol evidence cases like the Pacific Gas and Electric case which I already added a citation for in the article. Plus, the West Virginia judicial system is so bad (since no sensible judge wants to work or live there) that it is consistently rated one of the worst "judicial hellholes" in the U.S. by ATRA. West Virginia is one of those states which is so poor that its mayors have to go to rich states like California to beg California businesses to have mercy on West Virginia and outsource their back office operations there so West Virginians will have at least a few jobs [1]. We should not allow West Virginia promoters to abuse Wikipedia to promote one of the poorest and overpolluted states in the U.S. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original research! See official policies WP:NOT and WP:NOR.--Coolcaesar (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Vitriol much? I agree the case is a little obscure, but why the lengthy rant about West Virginia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.43.2 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Example

"Auto sales agreements. You purchase a used car, and the salesperson tells you it is "good as new". But the contract provides that the sale is as is. Again, in most circumstances the written contract controls. However, this also constitutes misrepresentation."

I don't believe that "as-is" provisions are interpreted as a guarantee of quality. Nor do I believe their meaning is ambiguous. Hence, the parol evidence rule would most likely not apply. This is an example of a customer's failure to read their contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.205.204 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2013

The word "parol" does not mean "oral" as is stated in this article. It is French, but this is what my contracts book, Crandall & Whaley's Cases, Problems, and Materials on Contracts (6th) has to say: "The word parol does not mean "oral" as is often supposed. Instead it is a French word meaning "informal" (i.e., not under seal)." Id at 460. S.kathryn82 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

American/English

This article is almost entirely wrong for English law yet seems to assert that it provides a universal discussion. I know painfully little about American law so am loathe to touch it but if somebody would care to section off the relevant parts I will happily modify the remainder to apply to English law - it's actually very simple, just a rebuttable assumption that something that appears to be the entire agreement is indeed the entire agreement (Treitel points out that this is an entirely circular definition). Merger clauses in English law are almost entirely ineffective as the courts tend to "discover" a separate contract whereby one party provides a warranty in exchange for the other party's agreement to enter into the primary contract. A related concept is the inadmissibility of evidence relating to the previous negotiations of the parties to a contract (see Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society), but that is a much fuzzier area and brings us to the distinction between implication and construction of terms, which Wikipedia should not touch with a barge pole. Simon0011 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Even on the American side, this article is stilted, one-sided and pro-formalist, and more in the track of Samuel Williston and the First Restatement of Contracts. It totally ignores the other side of the argument, including legal realism, Arthur Corbin, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Karl Llewellyn, the Uniform Commercial Code and a whole lot of cases to the contrary. The law is a lot more complicated and diverse than this article would admit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Error in date

The article refers (without link or citation) to a case "Pym v Campbell (1865)". I have done an extensive search for this case, and am unable to find any record of it. There is a well-documented Pym v Campbell (1856) the content of which seems to match the very brief overview in the article.

I suspect this is a simple editing error, the last two digits of the year being accidentally transposed, but even if the 1865 case exists, it could not be precedent-setting as it would have occurred nearly a decade after the 1856 case which involved exactly the same question of admissibility of evidence. I would suggest changing the year to 1856, and adding a citation to an outside soure, e.g. 173.212.70.242 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References