I'm not sure about the conflicting usage of supplement there, but here's the rule as I generally know it:onlyunholy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:31 pmGoing through some Adaptibar questions, and finding the explanations conflict. The parol evidence rule bars prior or contemp oral that contradict the full, completely integrated contract. Adaptibar explanations have said one of two things: 1) "Extrinsic evidence cannot supplement or contradict the express terms of a completely integrated agreement, but the evidence can explain the terms of an agreement.” AND 2) Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict but CAN supplement or explain the fully integrated K." Does anyone know which is correct?
If a contract is completely integrated, you cannot introduce prior or contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of prior understandings or negotiations UNLESS you are raising a defense to the formation of contract, you are raising a defense to the enforcement of the contract, you are attempting to prove a condition precedent to the formation of the contract, you are bringing the evidence to clarify an ambiguity in the contract, or you are bringing the evidence to show there was a wholly separate agreement.
If a contract is partially integrated, you can bring extrinsic evidence so long as it is consistent with the writing. The same exceptions as above apply here.
If a contract is not integrated at all you can bring anything you want, subject to the traditional rules of evidence.