Jones and Clark entered into a written contract for the purchase of an apartment building by Clark. The contract was carefully drafted to set forth the agreement of the parties. It was signed by both parties. Clark subsequently claimed that the contract

Question

did not cover all the terms included in the written and oral agreements that the parties had made during their prior negotiations. Jones claimed that the parol evidence rule barred proof of all of their prior agreements. Which claim would be upheld in court?

Answer 1

Judgment would be for Jones. The parol evidence rule applies to both oral and written agreements or other statements made prior to the execution of the written contract. It provides that such agreements may not be admitted to modify or contradict the terms of a written contract that is complete on its face. The contract was carefully drafted in an attempt to set forth the agreement between Jones and Clark and appeared to cover all of the essential terms of the transaction. Thus, the contract is complete on its face, and the parol evidence rule bars proof of all prior agreements, both written and oral.