California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Prod. Credit Assn., 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 201, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 380, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 169 (Cal. App. 2011):
[9] Because the written forbearance agreement is integrated, the parol evidence rule makes extrinsic evidence that would vary, alter, or add to the terms of the writing inadmissible, absent some exception to the rule. Plaintiffs contend the fraud exception applies and the extrinsic evidence they offered should have been admitted. The statutory exception provides: "This section does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates, as defined in Section 1860, or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement, or to establish illegality or fraud." (Code Civ. Proc., 1856, subd. (g), italics added.) "[P]arol evidence of fraudulent representations is admissible as an exception to the parol evidence rule to show that a contract was induced by fraud. [Citations.]" ( Richard v. Baker (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 857, 863, 297 P.2d 674.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.