Courts often justify the admission of evidence of ancillary agreements on the basis that the written contract does not contain a merger clause – a clear signal to the party who objects to the admission of that evidence that his lawyer has rendered null and medium-splearned. Sometimes the parties approve a partially integrated contract that omits some of the terms of the agreement. A court will generally decide that a contract is an integrated contract, unless there is strong evidence that this is not the case. The idea is quite simple. Lawyers and clients both understand the need to reduce most agreements to a definitive letter that will embody the entire agreement of the parties. The purpose of the Parol rule of evidence is “to prevent parties to a written contract from changing their terms by ancillary or interim agreements reached in preliminary negotiations.” 1 Does a merger clause make a contract fully integrated into the CISG for the execution of prior or simultaneous agreements within the scope of the written agreement? It is not entirely clear, but the merger clauses are probably not the sphere of money they are in many U.S. jurisdictions. Even in the case of a merger clause, it is permissible not to exclude extrinsic evidence, unless the parties actually intend the merger clause to have that effect. To establish this finding, evidence must be established for all relevant facts and circumstances.27 That the conduct of the benefit cannot be technically denied, since this is conduct that occurs after the formation of the contract.21 This raises a simple but fundamental point about the merger clauses and the Parol rule of evidence: they apply only to things that occur before or at the same time as the contract.22 Even a well-developed merger clause does not exclude an amendment after creation. In general, “[d]arties to a contract” cannot, even under an explicit provision of this treaty, take the power to amend, modify or unload it by a subsequent agreement. 23 This does not mean that clauses without oral amendment are all unnecessary – some statutes make them effective, at least to some extent.24 But sometimes non-oral amendment clauses are accompanied by merger clauses, as if they were taking on the same legal concept.
They are not and, to avoid confusion, merger clauses and non-oral amendment clauses should be defined in separate provisions. For example, an employment contract can be classified as integrated if it has all the contractual provisions normally expected of an employment contract, such as the length of work, the worker`s salary, the period of leave, health insurance coverage and other benefits.
（转载本站文章请注明作者和出处 酷 壳 – CoolShell ，请勿用于任何商业用途）