The One-Year Rule:
In the case of Gary v. Damon, a trial court would probably enforce the contract because although the Statute of Frauds requires contracts for longer than one year to be in writing to be enforceable, since it is possible that Gary may die within the year coupled with the showing by Damon of none months payments, the contract is enforceable.
Hence, the oral contract was possible to fulfill within the one-year rule and therefore enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
In the case of the Wood Care Centers, Inc. v. Evangel Temple Assembly of God of Wichita Falls, 307 S.W.3d 816303 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 2010) the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Wood Care when it applied the parol evidence in its interpretation of the Agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Appellate court reviewed the contract from a utilitarian standpoint, stating that if a contract is ambiguous, it is a question of law that must be decided by examining the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.
Wood Care contended that the trial court improperly considered parol evidence regarding a proposed conflict by Evangel that there was a conflict between specific clauses that created an ambiguity.
The Appellate Court determined that the conflict between the clauses did not create an ambiguity, and that the trial court erred by admitting parol evidence on this issue. They further stated that conclusions of law may not be challenged for factual sufficiency, but they may be reviewed to determine their correctness based upon the facts. Since the Court was making its determination based on a question of law, it upheld the decision of the lower court.
Here the Court stated that the parol evidence rule was not correctly applied, however the plaintiff did not establish a case to support a breach of contract against Evangel so their claim did not succeed.
The Parol Evidence Rule:
In the case of the Novell, Inc. v. Canopy Group, Inc. , 2004 UT.App 162, 92 P.3d 768 (2004) the trial court granted a summary judgment to Novell. The State intermediate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the determination by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals stated that the parol evidence rule operates in the absence of fraud to exclude prior and contemporaneous conversations, statements, or representations offered for the purpose of varying or adding to the terms of an integrated contract. An agreement is integrated where the parties adopt the agreement or meeting of minds in writing as the final and complete expression of the agreement.
Novell and Canopy's written agreement for a percentage of royalties is considered to be final agreement regarding the disbursement of monies to Novell. The written agreement quashes any verbal agreement made before the signing of the written agreement. To decide otherwise would invite all manner of oral addendums to written contracts.
Hence, the alleged oral contract was unenforceable.