Clarifying the Boundary between the Parol Evidence Rule and the Rules Governing Subsequent Oral Modifications

14 Pages Posted: 7 Oct 2016 Last revised: 13 May 2019

See all articles by Gregory S. Crespi

Gregory S. Crespi

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law

Date Written: 2008

Abstract

In this article, the author analyzes the rules that govern the legal effectiveness of oral agreements that purport to modify written contracts. The article includes a discussion of four situations that raise difficult questions of whether oral agreements should be regarded as pre-written contract agreements (rather than as subsequent oral modifications) for purposes of the parol evidence rule. The author concludes that no doctrinal changes are called for in the contract formation timing rules currently applicable to these situations unless such changes are accompanied by broader judicial enforcement of no-oral-modification clauses.

Keywords: Contract Law, Parol Evidence Rule, Contract Formation Timing Rules, Written Contracts, Oral Contracts, Contract Modification, Subsequent Oral Modification

Suggested Citation

Crespi, Gregory S., Clarifying the Boundary between the Parol Evidence Rule and the Rules Governing Subsequent Oral Modifications (2008). Ohio Northern University Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2008, SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 328, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2849213

Gregory S. Crespi (Contact Author)

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
128
Abstract Views
917
rank
274,087
PlumX Metrics