In support of the application of the rule to the instant case, counsel for the plaintiff referred me to the decision of our court in Powers v. Mesaros, 2007 BCSC 694, in which Mr. Justice Rogers considered an argument that a plaintiff holder of a promissory note should not be allowed to realize on the note because of the assurance given to the defendants that the plaintiff would not make demand on the note. Mr. Justice Rogers stated, at para.18, that the defendant’s assertion concerning the assurance is the “purest parole evidence” which stands directly contrary to the terms of the promissory note:
"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.