Business Law

Business

Quiz 16 :
Written Contracts

bookmark
Unbookmark

Quiz 16 :
Written Contracts

Parol evidence is explained below: Parol evidence rule is termed as a written document which has been signed by the parties before the contract comes into enforce. The contract terms cannot be modified. So, additional terms that are added to a contract are prohibited in court. Decision regarding the case issue is explained below: As per this case, parties to the contract has guaranty to be an integrated contract. It is because parties have made the agreement in writing. Here, G can only testify in case written contract is not clear. The court ruled that the document was complete and unambiguous. So, G owed the entire remaining balance. 1. yryn5fcdcuruudxdne57

D orally rented his commercial property for 6 years to B. B took possession and paid monthly rent and also spent in upgrading the property. D was aware of the repairs. After a year, D attempted to evict B. B claimed it had a six-year oral lease but D claimed that such a lease was worthless. By virtue of statute of frauds, a contract to be enforceable for the sale of any interest in land must be in writing. "Any interest" refers to any legal right regarding land. A lease is an interest in land. As a general rule, leases must be in writing. There are certain exceptions that enable the oral agreements to be enforceable. The exception states that if the buyer paid part of the purchase price or entered upon the land or made physical improvement to it, buyer may be able to enforce an oral contract. The fact that D permitted B to enter upon the property and also conduct several repairs can be compelling evidence that the two parties had reached an agreement. Also, one must take into consideration that mere paying a deposit on a house is not part performance. A plaintiff seeking for part performance is required to show partial payment and either entrance unto the land or improvements to it. B had took possession of the property, paid monthly rent for few months and also had invested in conducting repairs to the same property- all these factors are compelling evidences that the two parties had reached an agreement though it was made orally. Therefore, applying statute of frauds with the exception of part performance by the buyer, B can enforce the agreement. Thus, it is not ethical for D to use the Statute of Frauds in attempting to defeat the lease. The Statute of Frauds could enable a landlord to evict the tenant only when there is no full performance by the seller or part performance by the buyer or promissory estoppels.

Parol evidence rule is explained below: Parol evidence rule is termed as a written document which has been signed by the parties before the contract comes into enforce. This rule prevents reliance on any oral agreements made while signing the integrated written contract. Parol evidence rule can prevent evidence to an oral agreement made after signing the contract by the parties. Hence, Option img is correct. Likewise, Parol evidence rule's main purpose is to prevent a party from presenting evidence of prior oral agreements that occurred before. But Option A provides the information that it prevents on explaining ambiguity in the written contract. Therefore, Option A is incorrect. Parol evidence rule helps to indicate the fraud, which is interference with the contract occurred. But Option B provides the information that it can prevent on establishing fraud, which has been committed in the formation of the contract. Therefore, Option B is incorrect. Parol evidence rule can prevent from modification of contract when the contract is signed by the parties. But Option D provides the information that it can prevent subsequent oral agreement modifying the contract. Therefore, Option D is incorrect.

Related Quizzes