SHOULD THE COURTS PRESERVE, STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN THE APPLICATION OF PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE FROM ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW PERSPECTIVE?

Abstract

Parol evidence is written or oral evidence not contained in the contract, used to vary the terms of the contract. The parol evidence rule maintains that parol evidence cannot be admitted to assist in interpreting the contract if the contract itself forms the full agreement, or if the contract is unambiguous or clear. But since a contract reflects the intention of the parties and the element of good faith, this can be regarded as an exception to the rule. To prove the parties' intentions and above all the element of good faith can be quite ambiguous. In jurisdictions like France, Australia, the United States and many others, the duty of good faith is considered to be a crucial factor in Contract and Business Law. If you treat others the way you want to be treated, this could potentially avoid the risk of litigation. By contrast to the above mentioned countries, English Law differs and does not recognise a universal implied duty on contracting parties to perform their obligations in good faith. This paper focussed on the comparison between the English and French Jurisdictions with regards to the duty of good faith and how the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980 referred to as the CISG tries to set a balance between but with diverse views and opinions.