Parole Evidence Rule - Essay Example

As long as two people had agreed in writing, it only means that the entertained should follow suit by paying for the service (Clarkson et al. 28).

Parol Evidence Rule is not fixed just to parole or oral evidence. Under the rule, written agreements prior to the main agreement cannot be used to annul a latter drafted agreement particularly when it has been validated into a legally-binding written agreement. The disavowal that the concluding contract supersedes all the antecedent promises continues to give a pointer that indeed there was non-inclusion of furniture to the initially contracted terms. The second dimension indicates that whereas furniture is denotatively mentioned throughout the contract, a federal court may find that the provisions in the contract cannot be enforced because of vagueness. In other words, the terms need to be “reasonably certain” to effective enforcement. The same court can easily interpret the provision as an incipient agreement and seems promissory but was only meant to represent preliminary negotiations and had no legally binding connotations (Clarkson et al. 31).

In an event where the court is able to determine that the provisions are unenforceable, it cannot determine the pricing due to the fact that the seller is under no legal obligation to undertake any terms of the provision. In other words, there was no obligation for the inclusion of furniture in the sale agreement. In the future transaction where furniture is indeed included in the contract but the price is not, the court will not have to determine the price. In short, the court can only determine the price only when a service or good has in a way been consumed and cannot be returned in a similar condition with which it was sold. The same applies to its value which will have depreciated considerably compared to the time of sale. Such a situation will force the court to defer the pricing to the fair market for the purposes of valuing the good or service which in this case was furniture (Clarkson et al, 33).

The furniture indeed forms part of the sale but the court will find it difficult to determine the price because the good – furniture has not been consumed whatsoever. If for any reason the furniture had been used and as a result, its value had depreciated, the court would help in determining the price. However, considering that the good is yet to be used it only means that the court refers the matter to the fair market value to conform to the prevailing valuations. Suppose the two parties are unable to have an amicable agreement, then the court would have no obligation but to help in determining the price of the good or service. In the case of the two firms, the court would simply use the Parole Evidence Rule in sorting out the outstanding issues (Clarkson et al, 42). Read More