A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE IN CONTRACT LAW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the common law the 'hallowed principle' in contract law is that once the parties have reduced their agreement into a written form, in the event of a dispute between them as to the written terms of the contract,they are prohibited from adducing extrinsic evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the written terms. The strict application of the rule was found to have caused hardship and worked unfairly to the parties. To mitigate the rigour of the rule, the judiciary created exception to the rule, whereby extrinsic evidence was allowed to be admitted. In time, the exceptions became so numerous as to virtually emasculate the 'hallowed' rule. To allay this uncertain state of affairs, law commission were set up in the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Singapore to reconsider the status of the rule. Some suggested a slight modification of the rule while the Law Commission in Ontario suggested a total abolition of the rule. This paper proposes to look at the nature of the 'parol evidence rule', numerous exceptions to it, the merits and demerits of the proposals for reform especially in the mother of common law England, Canada, India, Singapore and Malaysia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".