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) The court will do its best to give effect to the intention of the parties.
B) To interpret express terms, the courts will look first to the plain meaning of the term (e.g., the dictionary meaning).
C) 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.
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) Evidence of misrepresentation will not be admissible because of the parol evidence rule.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Evidence of misrepresentation is indeed admissible in court to challenge the validity of a contract, despite the parol evidence rule. The rule generally prohibits the introduction of evidence outside the contents of the written contract to add to, modify, or contradict its terms, but exceptions exist for cases involving fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation.

A Week After Signing a Contract, You Became Aware That