Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
But with verbal amendments. A combination of written and verbal will stand in court here. I forgot where I read that, but if you need a citation, I'll get one.
Another way to put it is that one can't promise one thing and write down another for the purpose of deception, gain or whatever.
|
No, that is exactly the opposite of what is correct.
In general, for fully integrated written agreements, you CANNOT use evidence of "verbal" agreements that supplement or contradict the written agreement.
I don't need a citation. It's called the parol evidence rule.
It has a purpose. People need to be able to rely on written contracts. If written contracts could easily be supplemented or contradicted by supposed "verbal" agreements, contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on.
There are exceptions, but they are tough and generally do not work. Esp. when you sign a contract that specifically says it is the entire agreement between the parties, and specifically says there are no verbal agreements "supplementing" it. (You can be 100% sure his contact has this provision).
As far as your last sentence, in general, people who sign a written contract are charged with the responsibility of having read it. "He told me X, and I know the contract says Y but I just relied on what he said and didn't bother to read the contract before I signed it" won't work.