4 ms·
This is absolutely 100% false and a good example of why you shouldn't take legal advice from the internet. When you have a written contract, any and all verbal
by pzxc 13y ago
This is absolutely 100% false and a good example of why you shouldn't take legal advice from the internet.
When you have a written contract, any and all verbal contracts or amendments mean absolutely nothing. It's called the "four corners doctrine" and is a pretty universal judicial practice. Written contracts always, ALWAYS supersede any verbal agreements: with a written contract in hand, any mentions of oral discussions are irrelevant and will fall on deaf ears.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoI can't really believe this - if both parties agreed an alternate contract was made orally then the court would effectively rule against both parties in favour of supporting a knowingly false contract? FWIW the Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29, contrasts sharply with your use and doesn't really seem to speak at all to overwriting of terms by further contracts.
- judk 13y agoAh but in practice, they won't agree. One aide will be motivated to claim the oral contract did not exist.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoYes, but that's not what was claimed. Of course if it can't be established that there was any further [alteration of the] contract then the written contract will be relied on. But that doesn't really seem to be the heart of what the Four Corners doctrine is about.