Legal Analysis: Jenny and Penny's Contract and Parole Evidence Rule

This case study examines a contractual dispute between Jenny and Penny, focusing on whether Jenny is obligated to send sample dresses to Penny. The analysis centers on the parole evidence rule, which generally prevents parties from introducing extrinsic evidence to alter the terms of a fully integrated written contract. Referencing Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, the study explains that the parole evidence rule excludes pre-contractual negotiations and agreements not included in the final written contract, unless the contract is defective or ambiguous. In this specific scenario, the contract between Jenny and Penny did not mention the provision of sample dresses. Therefore, based on the parole evidence rule, the study concludes that Jenny is not obligated to send the samples to Penny, as her obligations are defined solely by the terms outlined in the written contract to which both parties consented. Desklib provides access to a wide array of solved assignments and study resources for students.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
CASE STUDY
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
Table of Contents
ISSUE:........................................................................................................................................2
RULES:......................................................................................................................................2
APPLICATION:........................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION:.........................................................................................................................3
REFERENCE:............................................................................................................................4

2COMMERCIAL LAW
ISSUE:
The main issue of this case is to determine whether Jenny is obliged to send the
sample dresses to Penny or not.
RULES:
The main subject matter of the case is based on the parole evidence rule. According to
the principle, no parties are allowed to insert any additional rule after the final contract has
been made and no party will take the plea that some other rules, apart from that has written in
the contract, made between them orally. In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail
Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24, it has been mentioned that when a contract has been
signed between the parties, all the extrinsic evidences will be excluded and their application
will be ceased. Further, the rule of parole evidence prevents all the rules made in the pre-
contractual negotiation and establishes those rules that written in the contract. However, if the
contract has been signed in between the parties defectively or if the rules mentioned in the
written contract are vague, the parole evidence rule will not be applied in those cases.
According to the elements of the rule, it can be stated that parole evidences will be applied
only if the contract has been written and finalised between the parties (Klass 2018). It
prevents the contractual parties from tampering with extrinsic evidences. This rule helps the
contract becomes legal and comprehensible in nature. Reasonably, "Parole" is gotten from the
Anglo-Norman and legitimate French terms. The term was, truth is told, gotten from the
Latin expression 'parabola', meaning 'discourse' (Epstein, Archer and Davis 2014). The
essential of the composed contract depends on the reasonable that the gatherings engaged
with the assertion ought to be legitimately attached to each other as far as their common
understanding and in composing. It has been basically characterized that the contracting
gatherings ought not digress or there ought not be any deviation in the last understanding

3COMMERCIAL LAW
while the assertion is being completed in composing or is being deciphered (Goldberger
2015).
APPLICATION:
In the present case, it has been observed that a contract has been made between Jenny
and Penny and after the contract has been written, both the parties have given their consent.
However, it has been observed that after the commencement of the contract, Penny has made
a demand to send certain sample of the contracted dresses to her. However, no terms relating
to this facts has not been mentioned in the written contract. According to the parole evidence
rule, it could be stated that Jenny is not obliged to send the samples to Penny, as she is
obliged to maintain those terms that are mentioned in the written contract. Further, both the
parties have given their consent over the agreement; therefore, it cannot be stated that any
coercive manner has been taken in this case. Therefore, no exceptional process could be
applied in this case.
CONCLUSION:
Jenny is not obliged to send the sample dresses to Penny.

4COMMERCIAL LAW
REFERENCE:
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24
Epstein, D.G., Archer, T. and Davis, S., 2014. Extrinsic Evidence, Parol Evidence, and the
Parol Evidence Rule: a Call for Courts to Use the Reasoning of the Restatements Rather than
the Rhetoric of Common Law. NML Rev., 44, p.49.
Goldberger, J., 2015. The principles of contract interpretation in Australian law. Commercial
Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, 29(1), p.22.
Klass, G., 2018. Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice.

5COMMERCIAL LAW