What rule prevents a party from introducing oral or written statements made before or at the time of signing a contract that contradict the written terms?

What rule prevents a party from introducing oral or written statements made before or at the time of signing a contract that contradict the written terms?

• A. Real Estate Licensing Act
• B. Parole Evidence Rule
• C. The Statute of Frauds
• D. Option Period Rule

Answer: (B)

The Parol Evidence Rule is the principle that governs the admissibility of evidence that contradicts the terms of a written contract. This rule holds that when parties have entered into a written agreement that is intended to be a complete and final representation of their deal, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements that contradict the written terms cannot be introduced in a court of law. The rationale behind this rule is to uphold the integrity of the written contract by giving precedence to the final written terms over any informal understandings or negotiations that occurred beforehand. This ensures clarity and prevents disputes about what was actually agreed upon, thereby promoting fair dealings and reliance on the written document as the definitive source of the parties' agreement. In contrast, the other options listed, such as the Real Estate Licensing Act, the Statute of Frauds, and the Option Period Rule, pertain to different legal concepts unrelated to the admissibility of evidence concerning a written contract. The Real Estate Licensing Act regulates licensing and practice within the real estate industry, the Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable, and the Option Period Rule concerns time frames for executing options in real estate transactions. None of these directly address the introduction of prior or contemporaneous statements

The Parol Evidence Rule is the principle that governs the admissibility of evidence that contradicts the terms of a written contract. This rule holds that when parties have entered into a written agreement that is intended to be a complete and final representation of their deal, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements that contradict the written terms cannot be introduced in a court of law. The rationale behind this rule is to uphold the integrity of the written contract by giving precedence to the final written terms over any informal understandings or negotiations that occurred beforehand. This ensures clarity and prevents disputes about what was actually agreed upon, thereby promoting fair dealings and reliance on the written document as the definitive source of the parties' agreement.

In contrast, the other options listed, such as the Real Estate Licensing Act, the Statute of Frauds, and the Option Period Rule, pertain to different legal concepts unrelated to the admissibility of evidence concerning a written contract. The Real Estate Licensing Act regulates licensing and practice within the real estate industry, the Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable, and the Option Period Rule concerns time frames for executing options in real estate transactions. None of these directly address the introduction of prior or contemporaneous statements