California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCContractsMedium

A small business owner enters into a written agreement with a supplier for 500 widgets at $5 each, to be delivered monthly over a year. The written contract states the price, quantity, delivery schedule, and payment terms. Before signing, the parties orally agreed that the widgets would be 'top-grade quality,' but this term was not included in the final written contract. When the first shipment arrives, the business owner claims the widgets are not 'top-grade' and attempts to introduce evidence of the prior oral agreement. Will the court likely allow this evidence?

  1. ANo, because oral agreements are never enforceable if a written contract exists.
  2. BYes, because the oral agreement clarifies the quality of the goods.
  3. CYes, because the oral agreement was made before the contract was signed.
  4. DNo, if the written contract is determined to be a complete integration.
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: D. No, if the written contract is determined to be a complete integration.

The parol evidence rule prevents parties from introducing prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that contradict or vary the terms of a written contract intended to be a complete and final expression of their agreement (a complete integration). If the contract is only a partial integration, then consistent additional terms may be introduced.

Why the other options are wrong

  • A. This statement is too broad; oral agreements can be enforceable, and the parol evidence rule has exceptions (e.g., to explain ambiguity, prove fraud, or show a partial integration).
  • B. Clarification is generally allowed for ambiguous terms, but here it's an attempt to add a new term to a seemingly complete contract.
  • C. The timing of the oral agreement (prior to signing) is precisely what triggers the parol evidence rule, not what allows its admission.

Parol Evidence Rule

A rule of contract law that prevents parties to a written contract from introducing extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the terms of a written contract that is intended to be a complete and final expression of their agreement.

  • Applies only to prior or contemporaneous agreements.
  • Bars evidence that contradicts or varies the written terms.
  • Does not apply to evidence explaining ambiguous terms, proving fraud, or showing a partial integration.

Memory trick: Written words rule; no whispering old deals into the new contract.

More Contracts questions