Finally, Jason’s evidence goes to the issue of performance, not construction. His evidence is not intended to alter the terms of the agreement; rather, it is evidence of whether he actually received the consideration that was promised. While this may be said to “contradict” the term that acknowledges receipt of the ten dollars, that is not the same as using oral evidence to alter unambiguous terms or show the existence of a collateral or supplementary agreement, which is the purpose of the parol evidence rule (Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, 1969 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1969] SCR 515).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.