Parol Evidence

• The parol evidence rule, the plain meaning rule, and the principles of contractual interpretation.

Differing conditions control the extent to which parol evidence is harmonious with benefit maximizing contract law. Limitations on and exceptions to use of parol evidence enforce and coalesce with doctrines of contract law. The issue is broader than it appears on its face and includes questions of default rules, transaction costs, competence of the judiciary, and analogousness with use of legislative histories in the interpretation of statutes.

• University of Pennsylvania Law Review
• Vol. 146 Nbr. 2, January 1998

• Parol Evidence

Parol refers to verbal expressions or words. Verbal evidence, such as the testimony of a witness at trial. In the context o...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Mc–Pl

• Jeffrey Allen Industries, LLC v. Manco, (Ohio 2011)

Civil - Contracts - parol evidence rule - summary judgment - evidence

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Monroe Excavating, Inc. v. DJD&C Dev., Inc., (Ohio 2011)

Express oral contract; contract formation; parol evidence; modification or waiver of abstract terms; manifest weight.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• What's happening to the parol evidence rule? more holes in the dike.

Increasingly and alarmingly, parties face greater risks of losing their contractual bargains, no matter how unambiguous they may seem. I SAY to-mah-...

• Defense Counsel Journal
• Vol. 67 Nbr. 2, April 2000

• Allied Erecting & Dismantiling Co., Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., (Ohio 2011)

breach of contract; parol evidence; contingent/dependent agreement; partial integration; fraud; summary judgment

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Bull Run Properties, L.L.C. v. Albkos Properties, L.L.C., (Ohio 2011)

CIVIL - contract; sale of property; parol evidence; condition precedent; integration; summary judgment; mootness

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Home S. & L. Co. of Youngstown, Ohio v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., (Ohio 2012)

Courts may look to parol evidence to determine whether a mutual mistake exists. Mutual mistake exists when the evidence shows that both parties are mistaken as to a material part of the contract.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Licata Jewelers, Inc. v. Levis Commons, L.L.C., (Ohio 2011)

Trial court erred by admitting parol evidence that directly contradicted the terms of a written lease agreement in support of an allegation of fraudulent inducement.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Natl. City Bank v. Herak, (Ohio 2011)

Contract ambiguity, parol evidence rule.

• Ohio Supreme Court