Like the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule admits some exceptions in which parol evidence, normally

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Like the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule admits some exceptions in which parol evidence, normally excluded, may be admissible in court. Through a fictional scenario about pop star Justin Bieber, this activity provides an example of how the parol evidence rule may be applied and when exceptions to the rule are made. A problem arises with written contracts when a party asserts that the writing is in some way deficient. To smooth transactions by limiting the types of evidence admissible in such claims, the courts rely heavily on the parol evidence rule. This common law rule makes oral evidence of an agreement inadmissible if it is made before or at the same time as a writing that the parties intend to be the complete and final version of their agreement. Read the case and answer the questions that follow. Suppose Justin Bieber and his representatives enter into a written contract with a concert venue in Chicago, Illinois. In the contract, the venue books Justin Bieber for a single performance at their stadium. The contract indicates the concert is to occur on September 15 of that year at 7 p.m., and that Justin Bieber and his representatives are to receive $300,000 plus 65% of all ticket profits. The contract in question is the final written agreement between the parties. However, after the contract was formed, the parties decided to alter the terms of the original agreement through a verbal agreement. In this verbal agreement, they decided to change the time from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. so that there would be more natural lighting outside for the concert. The tickets printed for the concert reflect this change in time. Justin's representatives also changed his schedule of events on the website to indicate this change in time.

1. What is the parol evidence rule, and what is the purpose of the rule?

2.Does the oral evidence described in the mini case fall under any exceptions to the parol evidence rule? Why or why not?

3. Suppose that instead of performing on September 15 of the same year the contract was made, Justin is booked to perform on September 15 of the following year. Based on that information, the contract must be in writing pursuant to the statute of frauds because the terms of the contract prevent possible performance within one year. How does this alter the admissibility of the oral evidence of a contract's modification?