Parol Evidence Rule

In the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

The best evidence rule is a rule that applies when someone wants to admit some form of evidence that is a document but the actual original document is not available for admission. Unfortunately, when this happen the party that wants to admit the evidence has to give an acceptable excuse to why the original documents are unavailable or absent. Therefore, the courts has to decide if the excuse is acceptable and allow the party to use their secondary evidence in order to prove their case or that the content of the document in order for it to be admissible as evidence in the case. Unlike, any other rule this rule only applies when a party is trying to prove that all of the content in the document is worthy of being admitted as evidence if the

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

Background: I was talking to my friend Jess. We were talking about the weather. I was saying it was too hot and she agreed with me. Jess then asked “Do you feel bad for the animals since they have fur and it makes it harder for them to cool down?”

The Masterson agreement wasn’t entirely agreed to in writing therefore the issue in this case varied substantially from the one Gianni addressed. The issue in this case was whether the parties intended their writing to serve as the exclusive embodiment of their agreement. When only part of an agreement is incorporated parol evidence may be used to prove elements of the agreement not in the writing.

The Exclusionary Rule has been around since the early 1900s, and it is a rule that some defendants who are involved in a felonious case tend to use as a remedy for unlawful searches that has a habit of violating their Fourth Amendment rights. This rule also dictates that any evidence that was unlawfully obtained should be ruled out as evidence under our Fourth Amendment, and the Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 is one of these cases that discusses this rule and evidences being excluded. Now, before this rule was created, “any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant, and how the evidence was seized was not considered an important issue” (“Exclusionary Rule”, n.d., para. 4).

Arthur Caplan believes that doctors are people with high authorities and their words are held in a "higher standard", therefore, physicians should not be speaking of their own belief without proof. Purveying invalid science information will lead to unnecessary panic and in some cases during epidemic the patients will avoid the uses of vaccinations. The level of free speech is rated differently between doctors and people without medical licenses because doctors speak with authority and patients tends to listen. In Caplan's opinion, physicians who mislead people through speeches based on "anecdote, myth, hearsay, rumor, ideology" should have their medical licenses revoked; especially in incidents like measles epidemic.

Philo does not mind that the argument is a posteriori; his only complaint is that it is a bad argument. Philo brings up several ways in which the argument from design fails as an inductive inference. To begin with, he claims that the analogy is no good. He asserts that the universe and a machine are not comparable in the way that the red and blue flames are comparative, and hence, a contention by similarity is not substantial. Philo's second objection is that the analogy does not work since it is between an entire and a part of that entirety. A machine is a part of the universe, and it looks bad to accept that one part of the universe is comparable to the entire of the universe since we have no experience of alternate parts. Philo's third objection is that not all order is the result of design. Therefore, it is conceivable that the universe is not undifferentiated from a machine despite the fact that it is requested; it may be practically equivalent to some other type of request and not to a man-made structure. For instance, some highly ordered systems that we know of are the result of reproduction instead of intelligent design. Just because there is order, therefore, it does not mean

Philo argues the argument from design that shows that god is infinity, perfection, and unification. He made a claim that shows his unsupported to this argument, which has the idea of the universe design. This claim plays a significant role to the general thrust of the discussion in the Dialogues. Philo disagree with the argument and says that there is no nature evidence of god’s infinity, perfection, and unification.

“The parol evidence rule is a legal rule that once a written agreement has been duly executed then it cannot be altered or annulled by any oral evidence that may contradict the terms of the agreement, except in case of a fraud or mistake” (BusinessDictionary.com, n.d.). There are exceptions to the patrol evidence rule where evidence that would normally be excluded may be admissible in court. The exceptions are contracts that are subsequently modified, contracts conditioned on orally agreed-on terms, contracts that are not final as they are part written and part oral, contracts with ambiguous terms, incomplete contracts, contracts with obvious typographical errors, voidable or void contracts, and evidence of prior dealings or usage of trade.

Thanks for the post! Philippians 4:13 is my all time favorite verse. That biblical verse has seen me thru many hard times in life. It simply amazes my simple human mind, how Gods' word comes to life when we begin to meditate upon it. I use to have a battle with fear, I feared I was not good enough, feared success, feared loss of salvation. When I was a child I suffered physical and sexual abuse, so fear was common to me. This verse quickly set me free from fear, when I realized God is in control. A preacher taught me something about fear, check this out. Fear simply means, False Evidence Apearing Real. I think that is so neat. What are some ways that we can apply Gods' word to our lives?

All States require certain evidence for different criminal and civil cases but states do not come up with their own rules. According to the article, What are the Rules of Evidence, (2016), the Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of evidence in federal trials, but state rules of evidence are largely modeled after the federal rules. The most important thing about evidence is getting the right evidence need for the case and is the evidence going to help you in the long run. Many times lawyers lose a case because of the evidence or the failure to disclose the evidence. In some cases the evidence used was not enough or not right for that case and that will also cause a lawyer to lose a case.

Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.

The collection of evidence, whether it be direct, circumstantial, physical, or testimonial, is very important to a case. Why? Because that evidence is what the prosecution hopes will end with a conviction. However, sometimes things happen and evidence gets contaminated. Now, the biggest thing to determine is whether the contamination happened on accident or if someone tampered with it on purpose.

Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.