Nicolazzo v Harb & Anor

[2009] VSCA 79

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Parol evidence rule
3. › Scope and application
4. › Whether rule applies where written agreement is between different parties than alleged oral agreement
5. › Whether rule applies to incomplete and defective document
6. › Whether rule applies where execution of written agreement is contested
1. Contract
2. › Parol evidence rule
3. › Modern formulation
4. › Whether rule excludes evidence of terms of contract or meaning of contract
5. › Relationship between parol evidence rule and identification of contract terms
6. › Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
7. › Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471
1. Contract
2. › Formation
3. › Oral agreement
4. › Whether oral agreement established notwithstanding existence of written document between different parties
5. › Whether written agreement unexecuted by purported corporate party
1. Partnership
2. › Liability of partners
3. › Whether partner liable for money applied at direction of co-partner for partnership purposes

Quick Take

The parol evidence rule does not operate to exclude evidence of an oral agreement between a plaintiff and party A by reference to a written agreement between the plaintiff and a different party B. The rule also does not apply where the written document is unexecuted by one of the contemplated parties, is patently incomplete and defective, or where the execution of the document is contested. Equuscorp v Glengallan is confined to cases where the same parties executed the written agreement and the oral agreement is alleged between those same parties.