A week after signing a contract, you became aware that you and the other party, Sheldon, seemed to have a different understanding of one of the provisions of the contract. Before you said anything to him, you reread it to see if your interpretation was valid. As you reread it, you noticed that not only was that provision vague, but also other terms and provisions were ambiguous or left out. Which of the following is false with regard to the methods used by the courts to interpret contracts?
A) Evidence of misrepresentation will not be admissible because of the parol evidence rule.
B) To interpret express terms, the courts will look first to the plain meaning of the term (e.g., the dictionary meaning.)
C) The court will do its best to give effect to the intention of the parties.
D) Evidence of a condition precedent agreed upon by the parties but not included in the written contract is admissible despite the parol evidence rule.
E) The parol evidence rule holds that when a contract is in writing, the court will not allow evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the written contract.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence of misrepresentation; it primarily excludes evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of a contract. Misrepresentation can be grounds for voiding a contract.

A Week After Signing a Contract, You Became Aware That