A manufacturer and a retailer negotiated the sale of 1,000 widgets. During these negotiations, the manufacturer orally agreed to provide free shipping. Subsequently, they both signed a detailed written contract for the sale of the widgets which specified the price, quantity, and delivery date, but was silent on the issue of shipping costs. The contract included a merger clause stating, 'This writing constitutes the complete and final agreement between the parties.' When the manufacturer later billed the retailer for shipping, the retailer sought to introduce evidence of the manufacturer's prior oral promise of free shipping.
Under the parol evidence rule, is this evidence admissible?
Yes, because the evidence is being used to interpret an ambiguous term in the contract.
No, because the written contract contains a merger clause, indicating it is a fully integrated agreement.
Yes, because the oral agreement is a consistent additional term.
No, because oral agreements concerning the sale of goods are never enforceable.
The correct answer is no, because the parol evidence rule generally bars the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements to supplement or contradict the terms of a fully integrated written contract. The presence of a merger clause is strong evidence that the contract is fully integrated, meaning the parties intended the written document to be the complete and final expression of their agreement. The alleged oral agreement for free shipping was made prior to the execution of the written contract and would supplement its terms. Therefore, evidence of this agreement is inadmissible.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the parol evidence rule?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the clarity of a contract affect the parol evidence rule?