Parol Evidence
Last Review
Last Update
Statutes
Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a record intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented:
(a) By course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade (RCW 62A.1-303); and
(b) By evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the record to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. (RCW 62A.2-202)
(a) By course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade (RCW 62A.1-303); and
(b) By evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the record to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. (RCW 62A.2-202)
Cases
WA has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 212, 214(c) (1981) and therefore extrinsic evidence is admissible as to the entire circumstances under which the contract was made, as an aid in ascertaining the parties' intent. This is true even if the contract is fully integrated and unambiguous. Berg v Hudesman 115 Wn.2nd 657 (1990).
Comments
Give the statutory notice referenced in the Oral Credit Agreements section.
Contributors
Malcolm C. Lindquist
The statutory information was edited and reviewed with the support of MultiState
Become a Content Contributor
The State Law Compendium is made possible through the cooperation, dedication and ongoing efforts of attorney’s who provide and update its statues, cases and comments.
Attorneys who would like to volunteer to develop or update compendium content are welcome to contact us to learn more.