Contact

Address
3rd Fl, 1131 Kensington Rd NW
Calgary, T2N 3P4
Leave a Message
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

by Courtney Aarbo Barristers and Solicitors

 

Subject to the terms of the Statute of Frauds which is outline below, both written and verbal agreements are valid and enforceable.

 

The difficulty with a verbal agreement is that the terms of it may be very difficult to determine, as opposed to a written agreement.  It is therefore always preferable to put an agreement in writing.

 

An agreement may be partially in writing, and partially verbal.  There is great difficulty in this type of agreement however, in that the “Parol Evidence Rule” states that evidence of a verbal term that contradicts a written term of an agreement should be rejected.

 

Most written commercial agreements contain a term stating that the written agreement contains the whole of the agreement between the parties, and there have been no verbal representations.  Obviously arguing for a verbal term in the face of such a provision is a difficult proposition.

 

If one bought  a photocopier and there was a written term of the agreement that the Vendor would supply one box of photocopier paper, but the salesman promises two boxes, this promise would probably not be enforceable as the verbal two box promise contradicted the one box written provision.  In addition the written contract probably has a term that it contains the entire agreement, thereby further frustrating the buyer’s argument that he or she was verbally promised two boxes.

 

The lesson to be learned is that while a verbal agreement may be enforceable, the far better practice is to prepare a written record of the agreement.  Make sure that all terms of the agreement are accurately written into the document.  Never rely on a verbal promise that is not incorporated into the written agreement.  If the written agreement contains a term that it is the entire agreement with no verbal representations (which is a good practice to include), make doubly sure everything is included.

 

In the event that you have entered into a verbal agreement, you should prepare a letter/memo setting out in detail all the terms that were agreed to, and place it on your file.  It is also a good practice to forward a copy of the letter/memo to the other contracting party “confirming” what was agreed.  If the other contracting party does not contact you contradicting your letter/memo, it is likely that a Court will place great reliance on it as accurately embodying the deal.

 

Sometimes your written contract will be formed by a series of letters, faxes and or emails.  In other words the contract is not incorporated into a nice 2 or 3 document. Make certain  that the pieces of paper that form your “less formal” agreement are all put together and kept in a secure location.

The Statute of Frauds enacted in 1677 is still in force in Alberta and it sets out which contract MUST be in writing. Traditionally, the Statute of Frauds requires a signed writing in the following circumstances:

  • Contracts in consideration of marriage. This provision covers prenuptial agreements.
  • Contracts that cannot be performed within one year. However, contracts of indefinite duration do not fall under the statute of frauds regardless of how long the performance actually takes.
  • Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land. This applies not only to a contract to sell land but also to any other contract in which land or an interest in it is disposed, such as the grant of a mortgage or an easement.
  • Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with his own money.
  • Contracts for the sale of goods involving a purchase price of $50 or more in Alberta.
  • Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party’s debt or other obligation.

 For more information contact Courtney Aarbo Barristers and Solicitors at www.aflawyers.caor info@aflawyers.ca or phone 403 571-5120. .

 

 

What happens if a verbal agreement conflicts with a written agreement?

 

By Anthony Pranata, Barrister & Solicitor

 

 

January 6, 2014

 

First and foremost, all contracts in Canada are subject to what is known as the “parol evidence rule”. The parol evidence rule generally bars extrinsic evidence (ex. things that are verbally expressed between two parties) that would alter the meaning of a written contract.

 

When the written contact is clear, the parties’ intention is to be derived primarily from the words they have used in the contract. Evidence of context cannot be allowed to contradict those words.

 

For example, if you enter into a written contract with another person to sell your car to him for $10,000.00, he cannot turn around and say that, after you two signed the agreement, you verbally agreed that you would sell him the car for only $9,000.00 because the power windows do not work.

 

However, let’s say that the written contract stated that the price of the car is either $10,000.00 if the power windows work or $9,000.00 if the power windows do not work. And let’s say that the windows only roll down half way. Does this mean that the power windows do work or do not work? Obviously you are going to argue that the windows do work because they do in fact go down, but the buyer is going to argue that the power windows do not work because these windows can only be rolled down halfway.  In this case, the written contract is ambiguous because it does not describe in detail what a “working power window” entails. Since the written contract is reasonably susceptible to having more than one meaning, extrinsic evidence would be admissible in a court of law to try to describe what you and the buyer meant by a “working power window”.

 

There are other exceptions to admitting oral evidence to vary a written contract, but in general:

a)      Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to interpret a contract if the contract is clear and unambiguous.

b)      Extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret a contract if the contract is ambiguous.

c)       Extrinsic evidence on an issue that is silent in the original written contract will be accepted by a court of law. In this case, provided that the extrinsic evidence satisfies all the legal requirements for forming a contract, the extrinsic evidence simply becomes a collateral contract (a second contract in addition to the original one).

 

For more information, please contact the law office of Courtney Aarbo, Barristers & Solicitors at info@aflawyers.ca

 

 

Anthony Pranata

Barrister & Solicitor

*The information contained in this blog is not legal advice. It should not be construed as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. If you require legal assistance, please contact a lawyer*