Monroe Bradstad borrowed \($100,000\) from his aunt, Jeanne Garland, to purchase farmland. Both parties subsequently signed a promissory note stipulating that interest would be accrued prior to or on January 1, 1992. After that, payments and interest would be made on January 1 of each following year, with the final balance due on January 1, 2010. The land was used as security for the note; thus, Branstad executed a mortgage.
Branstad paid a total of \($33,000\) from 1993 to 1997. In 1998, Branstad and Garland had a falling out, and Garland served Branstad with a notice to pay \($43,998\) in past-due interest. However, Branstad and his wife claimed that they had made a subsequent oral agreement with Garland that they would manage and spend money on her other properties in lieu of paying interest. Garland argued that there was no oral agreement and that any oral evidence would be inadmissible in court due to the parol evidence rule. Branstad argued that the oral agreement was made after the written contract was created, not before or during, and thus the oral contract was a separate contract and not subject to the parol evidence rule.
1. Does it matter when the oral contract was made in relation to when the written contract was created?
2. Why might it be ethically important for the court to hear the subsequent oral agreement made between Branstad and Garland?