Assume that Jack and Hal and Sophia enter into a written contract for the sale of the restaurant, the building and all of its contents. Jack orally tells Hal and Sophia he wants to keep a certain a mounted fish that is hanging on the wall of the restaurant. The contract contains an integration clause. Jack later goes to get the fish, but Hal and Sophia claim that it was part of the sale. Jack sues. What is the likely result?

Question

Guest

Social Studies

2 June, 00:29

Assume that Jack and Hal and Sophia enter into a written contract for the sale of the restaurant, the building and all of its contents. Jack orally tells Hal and Sophia he wants to keep a certain a mounted fish that is hanging on the wall of the restaurant. The contract contains an integration clause. Jack later goes to get the fish, but Hal and Sophia claim that it was part of the sale. Jack sues. What is the likely result?

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Britney Mcgrath · Answer 1

Answer:Jack cannot bring in oral agreement as evidence because of what is stated in the parol evidence rule.

Explanation:The parole evidence rule state that when an agreement between two parties has been legally signed by both parties and has been completed no more alterations or modifications can be written again on the agreement.

The term of Integration clause explains to us that the contract was completed by both parties because this is what is used at the end of a contract.