Can a false promise or representation be proven to be fraudulent under the parol evidence rule?

The false promise or representation in the instant case is clearly one relating to the identical matter covered by the main agreement and which contradicts its very terms. The main agreement is the written guarantee signed by defendant [179 Cal.App.2d 503] Poyet on the reverse side of the promissory note; and the oral false promise that no personal liability would attach to her as a result of the transaction, far from constituting some additional act not covered by the terms of the guarantee, covers the very matter of the main agreement; thus her testimony relating to the alleged false promise which contradicted the plain language of the guarantee, was properly stricken as incompetent under the parol evidence rule. The application of the rule is clear, particularly in promissory note cases, and controlling here is Shyvers v. Mitchell, 133 Cal.App.2d 569, 284 P.2d 826, in which a like contention was made that a guarantee on a note was void because its execution was induced by the fraudulent representation of one Partridge of the Bank that the signer would never be liable thereunder. Holding that evidence of this representation violated the parol evidence rule, the court stated, 133 Cal.App.2d at page 573, 284 P.2d at page 830: 'While it may be true that 'where the execution of

Page 881