The two cases of Bank of Montreal v. Bal and Corey Developments, deal with the application of the parol evidence rule. Which of the following best explains the different results in these cases?
A)In Corey Developments, a party was trying to get out of a guarantee. In Bal, a party was trying to avoid a warranty.
B)Corey involved a greater inequality of bargaining power than the other two cases.
C)The contract in Corey Developments contained an entire agreement clause, but Bal did not.
D)In Corey Developments, there was very clear external evidence of representations contradicting the terms of the contract, but in Bal the plaintiff's evidence was very weak
E)Corey is an older case and the parol evidence rule is now applied more strictly

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The two cases of Bank of Montreal v. Bal and Corey Developments, deal with the application of the parol evidence rule. Which of the following best explains the different results in these cases?
A)In Corey Developments, a party was trying to get out of a guarantee. In Bal, a party was trying to avoid a warranty.
B)Corey involved a greater inequality of bargaining power than the other two cases.
C)The contract in Corey Developments contained an entire agreement clause, but Bal did not.
D)In Corey Developments, there was very clear external evidence of representations contradicting the terms of the contract, but in Bal the plaintiff's evidence was very weak
E)Corey is an older case and the parol evidence rule is now applied more strictly

The Two Cases of Bank of Montreal V