The Parol Evidence Rule Of Australia


Task: Write an essay on The “Parole Evidence Rule” according to the Contract law of Australia.


Based on Australian Contract Law, this essay will conduct a discursive study of the "Parole Evidence Rule." It is essential to gain a basic knowledge of the "Parole Evidence Rule" before moving on to the main subject. According to the understanding established by the Australian Contract Law, by virtue of this rule, the parties engaged by a written contract are forbidden from tampering with the evidence and disclosing them, while also giving clarity to the stated terms of contract and removing any ambiguity (Ayres). As a result, the contract created in this manner is clear and visible to both parties. It should be noted that the Common Law System of England served as the primary inspiration for Australia's Contract Law, and some of its legislative provisions are applicable here as well. The Australian Parliament changed the Contractual laws in the 1980s (Botero, David and Echeverry).

Conceptually, the term "parole" derives from legal French and Anglo-Norman words. The word actually comes from the Latin word "parabola," which means "speaking." The rationale behind the written contract's foundation is that the parties should be legally bound to one another both in terms of their shared understanding and in writing (Carlin). It has been clearly stated that while the agreement is being carried out in writing or is being interpreted, the contracting parties must not stray from or make any changes to the final understanding (Dyani, Ntombizozuko and Mtendeweka). The written agreement should not be affected by the contracting parties' decision to exit the arrangement; neither should it change the terms and legal interpretation of the written agreement. In other words, it is accepted that the evidence obtained and the understanding reached previous to the contract's documentation should not be in conflict with it (Emerson). In reality, it is regarded as essential by law that the agreement, reached with the consent of both contracting parties, be in writing in order for a contract to be enforceable. According to the court's ruling, it is referred to as the final agreement, which is binding on both parties in the long run and has legal force. The primary tenet of the parole evidence rule further suggests that the parole evidence cannot, under any circumstance, be in conflict with a final agreement that has been recorded between the contracting parties. However, it may support a course of business between two parties.

Understanding the critical approach used in the parole evidence and how the same is applied from a legal standpoint is equally crucial. It has been explained that the main goal of the parole evidence is to explain the regulations and describe how they would be put into practise in the various Australian territories. It should be noted that Australia's rule of contact law has long been a source of disagreement and has given birth to a number of contentious issues (Epstein, David and Timothy). The parole evidence rule has been the subject of discussion in Australia for a number of years, however it has been largely acknowledged that the constitutional framework of Australian contract law adopts an objective approach to contracting. The supporters of the parole evidence rule have recently expressed their concern, questioning whether a law should be drafted to make the parole evidence a proper statute or should be implemented to make it a common practise, despite the objective approach used in Australia to develop contracting laws. In fact, it should be recognised in view of the current situation that parole evidence has become more significant ever since the well-known case of Codelfa Construction vs. the State Railway authority of New South Wales. This case's judgement was rendered in 1982.