2:7 Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

2nd semester notes...

Description

2/7 I.    

Parol Evidence Bar  More important it is, more reason for it to be in the writing (meant, intend, & important?) Complete v. partial integration Non-reliance clause: can’t take their word for something Prior or Contemporaneous (at the same time)  Oral/text/ writing (something separate from final contract)  To vary or alter Letting it in = extrinsic evidence (shed light on meaning of some term)  If start w/ 4cs  ambiguity  EE  If not ambiguous, say plain language governs & can’t bring this in  Broader, Pac. Gas, Traynor, relevant?  CHECK



Want out relationship to mean something (can’t let people change, could lie, change their mind, memories fade, worry about fabricators)

Mitchell v. Lath Tried to bring in oral agreement when moving ice box from land Parol evidence bar She’s saying they had another entire different conversation and isn’t lying so think it should count Per Admissibility Test 1. Collateral (side of) 1. Collateral (usually met) 2. ≠ contradict exp. Or implied 2. same 3. ≠ so clearly connected or didn’t Same (emphasis on intent) covers need to be in the writing limited field

   





Majority doesn’t have to do/go through all three (takes you to prong that they think she can’t meet)  Have to meet all three elements Exceptions: 1) Separate consideration 2) Fraud (show she was induced to take action she wouldn’t otherwise except for lies)  Wyoming vitiates K (fraud

  

Promissory lie (lie about the future)  hard to prove (need show inducement or have someone turn)

So important, meant so much that it should have been written down = statute of frauds So important, meant so much, that it should have been in the writing, so clearly connected to principal transaction =

 

Compete integration This is it and it’s integrated, still want to ask scope of field (so connected that it is blocked by scope?)

P. 680: written contract, however complete, only covers a limited field Can have some promises that are related, but not so related    

Can’t use Parol Evidence for anything crucial to contract Fraud overcomes parol evidence problem Some courts say we won’t let you prove the fraud (signed another clause that I didn’t rely on any misrepresentations, but they did. Ex = subshop case LaFazia v. Howe) )...