Alford doesn’t like but has good list of parol evidence exceptions
Ratio
Admissible oral evidence:
To show that the contract was invalid because of fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, incapacity, lack of consideration, or lack of contracting intention;
To dispel ambiguities, to establish a term implied by custom, or to demonstrate the factual matrix of the agreement;
In support of a claim for rectification;
to establish a condition precedent to the agreement;
to establish a collateral agreement
In support of an allegation that the document itself was not intended by the parties to constitute the whole agreement
In support of a claim for an equitable remedy, such as specific performance or rescission, on any ground that supports such a claim in equity, including misrepresentation of any kind, innocent, negligent or fraudulent
In support of a claim in tort that the oral statement was in breach of a duty of care
3.Rectification
The parties have made an error in the writing of the document and they need the courts to reqrite the document to make it consistent with the paris’ intentions
U.S.A. v Motor Trucks, Limited
Mistake in drafting, party seeks rectification
Issue
Ratio
Notes
Parties execute a settling contract in which property “specified in schedule A goes to USA
No property is in that schedule
USA wants court to rectify mistake in drafting
•Parol Evidence is admissible in rectification case because it is seeking an equitable remedy -> court is only seeking to modify the contract so that it can rectify the contract’s drafting error
oThe error in drafting needs to be a bilateral mistake for rectification
Bercovici v Palmer
Parties make deal, item is added that shouldn’t be, judge uses subsequent actions to determine intentions
•In determining whether there was an error in the drafting of a contract that requires rectification, a judge may use the parties' actions subsequent to the execution of the contract, as evidence of what the intent the parties had in their mind when forming the contract.
Subsequent actions show it was a mistake to include
Sylvan Lake Golf and Tennis Club Ltd. v Performance Industries Ltd.
Mistake in drafting, court lays out 4 requirements for receiving rectification
