Scott is trying to introduce oral evidence in court to alter the terms of a written contract he had with Bonnie.Bonnie has raised the parole evidence rule as an objection to Scott's testimony.In which of the following circumstances will Scott not be able to introduce the oral evidence?
A)The contract has an integration clause in it and Scott's point of contention is covered in detail in the contract, although not to his favor.
B)There was a mutual mistake of a material fact when the contract was entered into.
C)The oral evidence is introduced to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous term used in the written contract.
D)Scott claims that he was defrauded into entering into the contract and wants to testify about the intentional misrepresentations of material facts.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

If the contract has an integration clause, it means that the parties intended the written contract to be the complete and final agreement between them. In such a scenario, parole evidence cannot be introduced to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of the contract. If Scott's point of contention is covered in detail in the contract, even if it's not to his favor, he cannot introduce oral evidence to alter the terms.

B, C, and D are exceptions to the parole evidence rule, allowing oral evidence to be introduced in court to alter the terms of a written contract.

Scott Is Trying to Introduce Oral Evidence in Court to Alter