§ 19-11 Contract - Parol Evidence

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Civil (SCBar) (2016 Ed.)

§ 19-11 Contract - Parol Evidence

The parol evidence rule states that where the terms of a written instrument are unambiguous, clear and explicit, extrinsic evidence of statements made contemporaneously with or prior to its execution are inadmissible to contradict, vary, or explain its terms. The parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence of agreements or understandings contemporaneous with or prior to execution of a written instrument when the extrinsic evidence is to be used to contradict, vary or explain the written instrument. This rule excludes evidence which would give a perfectly clear agreement a different meaning or effect than indicated by the plain language of the agreement.

If a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show the true meaning of the contract and intent of the parties. Parol evidence may be admitted to supply a deficiency and establish the true intent of the parties. Parol evidence is admissible to show the true meaning of an ambiguous written contract. An ambiguous contract is one that can be understood in more ways than just one or is unclear because it expresses its purpose in an indefinite manner. Where a written contract is silent as to a particular matter and ambiguity thereby arises, parol evidence is admissible to supply the deficiency.

See Penton v. J.F. Cleckley & Co., 326 S.C. 275, 486 S.E.2d 742 (1997); Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295, 391 S.E.2d 577 (1990); Graves v. Serbin Farms, Inc., 306 S.C. 60, 409 S.E.2d 769 (1991)(parol evidence rule states that where terms of written instrument are unambiguous, clear and explicit, extrinsic evidence of statements made contemporaneously with or prior to its execution are inadmissible to contradict, vary, or explain its terms); Klutts Resort Realty, Inc. v. Down'Round Dev. Corp., 268 S.C. 80, 232 S.E.2d 20 (1977); Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., 379 S.C. 225, 665 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 2008); Redwend Ltd. P'ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 581 S.E.2d 496 (Ct. App. 2003); Koontz v. Thomas, 333 S.C. 702, 511 S.E.2d 407 (Ct. App. 1999); Visual Graphics Leasing Corp. v. Lucia, 311 S.C. 484, 429 S.E.2d 839 (Ct. App. 1993)(absent fraud, accident, or mistake, when terms of written agreement are unambiguous, extrinsic evidence of contemporaneous statements, allegedly made by parties to agreement, are inadmissible if they contradict or vary terms of written agreement); Skinner v. Elrod, 308 S.C. 239, 417 S.E.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1992)(parol

...